Florida, Florida, Florida

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what.  This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know.  Reasonable doubt personified. 

All we know are the facts.

Kid used Purple Drank or Lean.  Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months.  8, in a small geographic area.  Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police. 

We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone. 
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know one 17 year old is dead.  We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face 
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did

You keep bringing up TM's past to paint a picture of who he is and explain how he might have acted. 

Can you complete the same exercise for GZ?

Is it fair to paint him as a wannabe cop and assume that it influenced how he acted?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You keep bringing up TM's past to paint a picture of who he is and explain how he might have acted. 

Can you complete the same exercise for GZ?

Is it fair to paint him as a wannabe cop and assume that it influenced how he acted?

Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff?  Could it have influenced him...sure, probably.  Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not. 

People can do the exercise if they wish, I'm not against people wanting to make their neighborhoods better, trying to take them back from the nonsense that goes on in some places.  Put another way, I'm going to have a lot more support for a wannabe cop then someone that is looking to get a gun illegally, had stolen property in his school locker (which the school district relabeled to prevent his expulsion), publicly couldn't wait to score more drugs.  If that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but I'd rather support someone with the better intentions.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For Illinois vs Florida, that's pretty weak.

I present you with this:

Florida Man Seen Masturbating Outside Woman's House Three Times; Claims He Was Just Urinating Behind Bushes

http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/melchisedech-isoph-arrested-accused-of-repeatedly-masturbating-outside-womans-house/-/8815578/21165030/-/e2d2lw/-/index.html

I pulled up one story in the last 24 hours.  I'm sure I could invest some time in it.  For now, Illinois might want to fix their bond rating, the Chicago murder situation, and a whole slew of other issues.  Maybe even elect a governor that can stay out of prison.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff?  Could it have influenced him...sure, probably.  Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not. 

People can do the exercise if they wish, I'm not against people wanting to make their neighborhoods better, trying to take them back from the nonsense that goes on in some places.  Put another way, I'm going to have a lot more support for a wannabe cop then someone that is looking to get a gun illegally, had stolen property in his school locker (which the school district relabeled to prevent his expulsion), publicly couldn't wait to score more drugs.  If that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but I'd rather support someone with the better intentions.

Let's talk about this objectively (if we can).

In theory a "wannabe cop" could be quite dangerous. If that person isn't trained properly, but feels empowered to participate in events that should be left to law enforcement, that could cause some serious trouble.

Now, by that same token, a "troubled youth" could also be dangerous. No doubt.

My point is, you seem to only focus on TM's issues, but I haven't heard you ever mention GZ's possible shortcomings. If you want to get into the speculative minutia, then let's get into it.

With this said, I think a better course of action is to step away from the minutia and look at the big picture of what happened, and see how you feel about it.

How would you feel if an unarmed member of your family was followed, engaged, and ultimately shot? Are you ok with untrained citizens participating is such activities?

[Henry Sugar]

I pulled up one story in the last 24 hours.  I'm sure I could invest some time in it.  For now, Illinois might want to fix their bond rating, the Chicago murder situation, and a whole slew of other issues.  Maybe even elect a governor that can stay out of prison.

Florida Man Hospitalized After Tapping Favorite Alligator On The Nose During Feeding Demonstration

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/south-florida-man-attacked-by-alligator-during-demonstration/-/1637132/21095606/-/h73jeyz/-/index.html

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man Not Guilty Of Killing Unarmed Teen Who Beat Him In Fight

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Hards Alumni]

And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what.  This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know.  Reasonable doubt personified. 

All we know are the facts.

Kid used Purple Drank or Lean.  Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.

We know nothing.  We know he bragged about it online.  Yet, he had none in his blood.  Strange.  Didn't you know that everything children post online is true!

We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)

You've never smoked weed before, clearly.  The expert has to qualify his statement only to cover his own professional ass.  You know, NEVER SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES.

We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights

I don't see the relevance, if he has his parents permission, it is legal for TM to own a gun in FL

We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months.  8, in a small geographic area.  Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/

Varying numbers

We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops

One in which he didn't chase down the suspicious person and shoot them in the chest.

Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police. 

Hearsay.

We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone. 

We also know GZ ignored their specific instructions.

We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed

Lmao, conflicting testimony in the dark from some distance.  You cherry pick worse than anyone I've seen here except maybe Lab Warrior.

We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed

Again, it was dark.  I'd be willing to bet that most people can't tell which person was on top from across the street in the dark.

We know his head was bashed and his nose broken

We know GZ sustained minor injuries that he did not immediately go to the hospital for.


We know one 17 year old is dead.  We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)

We know that one 17 year old is dead because a 29 year old shot him.  The burden of proof for the 29 year old to prove it was self defense should be EXTREME.


We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face 

This is where it all gets hazy.  Sure he was beat up, but no injury caused to him was anywhere near life threatening.  Could GZ have felt afraid for his life?  I guess.  But if he was willing to pursue a person that he suspected as a ROBBER in the NIGHT who he believe to be ARMED, how can he possibly say he was afraid when TM was on top beating him?


We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn

We know his statements contained gross inconsistencies between them, and the facts obtained from the scene.  Cooperation does not equal honesty.


We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire

Of course he would say that.  Anyone would say that.  His relief was in line with his thought process at the time, which could have been that he thought he did the right thing... even though it may have been the wrong thing.

We know the jury found him not guilty.

We do know the jury found him not guilty based on the way the law is interpreted as written in the state of Florida.


We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims

Namely, you.  You are not a lawyer, nor are you even remotely close to a lawyer.  The number of things that you point out as evidence are incorrect, hearsay, and circumstantial on a completely regular basis.  So please, stop masquerading as a lawyer.

We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.

Probably.  He killed someone.


We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did

Shouldn't his statements be examined?  Perhaps we should take all murder suspects at their word.

Chicos, just stop.  You aren't a legal expert, or even a legal novice, so stop trying to pass yourself off as Matlock.

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man Sips Beer As He Wanders Naked Through Neighborhood; Says He Didn't Know He Had No Clothes On |

http://www.abc-7.com/story/22830542/man-wanders-naked-in-port-charlotte-neighborhood

[Hards Alumni]

Let's talk about this objectively (if we can).

In theory a "wannabe cop" could be quite dangerous. If that person isn't trained properly, but feels empowered to participate in events that should be left to law enforcement, that could cause some serious trouble.

Now, by that same token, a "troubled youth" could also be dangerous. No doubt.

My point is, you seem to only focus on TM's issues, but I haven't heard you ever mention GZ's possible shortcomings. If you want to get into the speculative minutia, then let's get into it.

With this said, I think a better course of action is to step away from the minutia and look at the big picture of what happened, and see how you feel about it.

How would you feel if an unarmed member of your family was followed, engaged, and ultimately shot? Are you ok with untrained citizens participating is such activities?

Guns, I don't agree with your middle of the ground take on things 99% of the time, but in this thread, I wish we could all be more like you.  You've made perfect points with every post.  Thank you for your thoughts here.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Guns, I don't agree with your middle of the ground take on things 99% of the time, but in this thread, I wish we could all be more like you.  You've made perfect points with every post.  Thank you for your thoughts here.

Hooray, finally, my level headed approach to the internet is paying off!

I promise to be more controversial and snarky about regular basketball topics.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what.  This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know.  Reasonable doubt personified.

All we know are the facts.

Kid used Purple Drank or Lean.  Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.

We know nothing.  We know he bragged about it online.  Yet, he had none in his blood.  Strange.  Didn't you know that everything children post online is true!

He admitted to using it in the past.  He didn't have it in his blood because he was likely on his way home to make it.  Not surprising.

We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)

You've never smoked weed before, clearly.  The expert has to qualify his statement only to cover his own professional ass.  You know, NEVER SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES.

The expert CHANGED his testimony because he knows his initial comments were wrong.  That's the only reason he changed it.  When GZ said he looked like he was on drugs...he was.  And for people here to say that it had ZERO impact and was taken weeks before, is garbage.  They don't know that.  What level of impact, we won't know, but it was in his system and some people are impacted more than others.


We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights

I don't see the relevance, if he has his parents permission, it is legal for TM to own a gun in FL

The relevance is that he wanted to purchase it ILLEGALLY.



We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months.  8, in a small geographic area.  Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/

Varying numbers  

Correct.  Enough that the neighborhood got together and put this watch together. Interesting how many minorities in that neighborhood continue to back GZ.

We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops

One in which he didn't chase down the suspicious person and shoot them in the chest.

All situations are different, but you are correct.  Just as some crimes by police are stopped by a phone call, and some by a bullet.  Every situation is different.  My guess is that in the one thwarted on Feb 2nd, the suspect didn't bash Zimmerman's skull into the ground or break his nose.

Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.

Hearsay.

Not hearsay.  Some of the residents said they didn't bother to report them to the police.  

We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.

We also know GZ ignored their specific instructions.

He followed some, not others.  Claimed to be going back to the car as instructed.  He was under zero obligation to follow those orders


We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed

Lmao, conflicting testimony in the dark from some distance.  You cherry pick worse than anyone I've seen here except maybe Lab Warrior.

Conflicting testimony?  Absolutely not the case.  No conflicting testimony.  Mr. Good said TM was on top.  The female witness said GZ was on top AFTER the shot was fired.  The sound of the shot drew her to her porch.  Nothing conflicting at all.  No cherry picking.  Try again or simply apologize.  

We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed

Again, it was dark.  I'd be willing to bet that most people can't tell which person was on top from across the street in the dark.

Under oath, both witnesses said they made a positive ID.  They were there, you weren't.  They are able to discern what their abilities are.  If that was in question, the attorneys and the jury would bring that up.

We know his head was bashed and his nose broken

We know GZ sustained minor injuries that he did not immediately go to the hospital for.

We know he had a broken nose and was repeatedly having his head smashed in. We know blood from the nose was going into his mouth and making it difficult for him to breathe.  If one continues to let someone bash your head in, you risk further damage, severe damage and even death.  Under law, he is allowed to protect himself from that further pounding.

We know one 17 year old is dead.  We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)

We know that one 17 year old is dead because a 29 year old shot him.  The burden of proof for the 29 year old to prove it was self defense should be EXTREME.

Just as the burden of proof that he had intent to shoot him should be extreme. Couldn't be proven.  Easy acquittal.  Sorry you don't like the outcome, we have a jury system in this country that uses a heavy burden to prove someone of guilt for good reason.

We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face

This is where it all gets hazy.  Sure he was beat up, but no injury caused to him was anywhere near life threatening.  Could GZ have felt afraid for his life?  I guess.  But if he was willing to pursue a person that he suspected as a ROBBER in the NIGHT who he believe to be ARMED, how can he possibly say he was afraid when TM was on top beating him?

Who is being Matlock now?  Can you show me where he thought he was armed?  Maybe he did, only thing I read is that he said he had something in his hand, but couldn't identify it.  That's a leap to say he was armed.  Again, maybe he did say it, but I'd like a link.  
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn

We know his statements contained gross inconsistencies between them, and the facts obtained from the scene.  Cooperation does not equal honesty.

GROSS INCONSISTENCIES?  Can you outline them for us.  Even far left websites mostly have said SLIGHT inconsistencies that are often the case with people trying to remember traumatic events.  Sure you aren't sexing up the term gross inconsistencies here for points and not reality?  Cooperation does not always equal honesty, but its normally a pretty decent indicator according to law enforcement.

We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire

Of course he would say that.  Anyone would say that.  His relief was in line with his thought process at the time, which could have been that he thought he did the right thing... even though it may have been the wrong thing.

Anyone would say that in hindsight if they had time to think about it. When the cop was asked in his professional experience if he thought GZ was lying.  The cop said NO.

We know the jury found him not guilty.

We do know the jury found him not guilty based on the way the law is interpreted as written in the state of Florida.

Would you have liked them to apply the law of Wisconsin or Michigan instead?

We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims

Namely, you.  You are not a lawyer, nor are you even remotely close to a lawyer.  The number of things that you point out as evidence are incorrect, hearsay, and circumstantial on a completely regular basis.  So please, stop masquerading as a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be one.  I laid out what was factual, not necessarily what is admissable.  I don't see where you refuted any of it.  If anything, I was able to refute some of your comments and accusations here.

We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.

Probably.  He killed someone.

In self defense.  Something he is allowed to legally do

We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did

Shouldn't his statements be examined?  Perhaps we should take all murder suspects at their word.

Of course they should be examined.  Why is the presumption that anything and everything he says is a lie?

[forgetful]

Chicos.  Two things.  Quit saying you are just reporting facts.  Your facts have counter evidence and witnesses that report the opposite of your facts.  

Second.  Since you are not an expert in pharmacology and illicit drugs, do not say that TM was on drugs, thereby confirming GZs impressions.

The medical examiner is not an expert on pharmacology nor illicit drugs, and frankly is not qualified to make statements as to the effect of the detected marijuana levels.  I assure you if the prosecution had known before the hearing that he was going to change his story, they would have had an actual expert lined up to refute his statements.

I will say, that the amount of marijuana in his system, given that it represented drugs taken at best a day before, was not sufficient to illicit any impairment.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Forgetful

  The refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony you refer to were obviously not credible enough to convince a jury. And one need not be an expert in anything to state the facts. Similiarly, how do you know that the drugs in his system had no effect on his actions?

Enquiring minds want to know

[forgetful]

Forgetful

  The refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony you refer to were obviously not credible enough to convince a jury. And one need not be an expert in anything to state the facts. Similiarly, how do you know that the drugs in his system had no effect on his actions?

Enquiring minds want to know

First, refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony were not sufficient to convict without a reasonable doubt.   That does not make the opposing view a fact. 

As for the latter.  The fact is that there was 1.5 ng/ml of THC in his system.  That does not make it fact that he was under the influence of marijuana.  A typical marijuana user can have baseline THC levels exceeding 15 ng/ml, even when they haven't used marijuana recently.  The medical examiner was stating a hypothesis, because frankly he wasn't qualified to provide an answer. 

For the enquiring minds, lets just say we all have our areas of expertise, mine aptly positions me to specify as an expert on this issue.  Unlike others around here, I do not like to post/boast about my personal/professional life.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

More credible is still more credible. Refuting testimony doesn't mean that it was the truth and it was sketchy and dubious. And I was stunned when  allen dershowitz stated that the prosecutors should be impeached for bringing the case in the first place.

[forgetful]

More credible is still more credible. Refuting testimony doesn't mean that it wasn't the truth and it was sketchy and dubious. And I was stunned when  allen dershowitz stated that the prosecutors should be impeached for bringing the case in the first place.

Fixed a typo (I think).  You are right.  It is an unknown.  But the fact that the truth is unknown means that Chicos statements are not fact, they are one possible version of the events.  Distinctly different than fact.

That was my point.  He keeps stating...the facts are....rather than one possible scenario.

I've stated numerous times that I do not think there was sufficient evidence presented in court to convict based on Florida law.  That is different than GZ being at fault for his death.  I believe that if they bring a civil case against GZ that the Martin family would win.

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man Taken To Police Station For Driving Without A License, Urinates On X-Ray Machine, Detention Officer

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130729/ARTICLES/130729606/1150/news09?Title=Police-say-man-relieved-himself-on-jail-machine-staffer

[Lennys Tap]

Hooray, finally, my level headed approach to the internet is paying off!

I promise to be more controversial and snarky about regular basketball topics.  

Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere!

[Hards Alumni]

Fixed a typo (I think).  You are right.  It is an unknown.  But the fact that the truth is unknown means that Chicos statements are not fact, they are one possible version of the events.  Distinctly different than fact.

That was my point.  He keeps stating...the facts are....rather than one possible scenario.

I've stated numerous times that I do not think there was sufficient evidence presented in court to convict based on Florida law.  That is different than GZ being at fault for his death.  I believe that if they bring a civil case against GZ that the Martin family would win.

+1 exactly.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere!

HA! Thanks.

Well, I love Buzz. The whole "5 years" thing is an effort to be fair to him. If he struggled or if he was great, I would have said the same thing. I promise. Hell, I said the same thing about Vander. I say the same thing about Juan.  Maybe I'm just more patient than most.

Anyways, for the most part, the discussion in this topic has been pretty good. My only issue is some people are getting into too many speculative "facts", which I think creates needless debate.

Stick to the big picture, and I think it creates a better discussion about crime prevention and self defense vs crime fighting and engagement.

[MU82]

And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what.  This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know.  Reasonable doubt personified.  

All we know are the facts.

Kid used Purple Drank or Lean.  Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months.  8, in a small geographic area.  Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.  

We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.  
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know one 17 year old is dead.  We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face  
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did

Chicos:

You forgot to list one important "we know."

We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listened to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."

You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.

BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos.  Two things.  Quit saying you are just reporting facts.  Your facts have counter evidence and witnesses that report the opposite of your facts.  

Second.  Since you are not an expert in pharmacology and illicit drugs, do not say that TM was on drugs, thereby confirming GZs impressions.

The medical examiner is not an expert on pharmacology nor illicit drugs, and frankly is not qualified to make statements as to the effect of the detected marijuana levels.  I assure you if the prosecution had known before the hearing that he was going to change his story, they would have had an actual expert lined up to refute his statements.

I will say, that the amount of marijuana in his system, given that it represented drugs taken at best a day before, was not sufficient to illicit any impairment.

Show me the counter evidence...by all means.  Every time you have done it so far, it has been easily dismissed.  Like your claim a witness saw GZ on top.  You keep forgetting to mention this was AFTER the gun fired, not prior.  Little pesky details like that.

The blood evidence says he was on drugs...I don't need to be in pharmacology.  The medical examiner is an expert in determining what toxicology is in the system and can express an opinion on a number of things to determine if it had an impact in death.  For you to say he isn't qualified to make those statements is quite remarkable.  Not only is he qualified, it was admitted as evidence.  His expert opinion is just that, an expert opinion.

So I'm not to play pharmacology expert yet in your last line you do the very thing you accuse me of.  Got it.  LOL

[MerrittsMustache]

Chicos:

You forgot to list one important "we know."

We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listed to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."

You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.

BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.

When was GZ "told repeatedly" not to pursue TM? Based on the 911 call, the dispatcher told GZ that he didn't need him to follow TM and at that point, GZ stopped following him. Did he chase after him once the call ended? We don't know for sure. According to GZ's story, he didn't but, again, we don't know that.

This post shows one of the primary issues with this case. The things that people claim to "know" are often incorrect and, in many cases, it's because of what has been reported by the media.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos:

You forgot to list one important "we know."

We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listed to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."

You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.

BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.

We also know from that same 9-1-1 call that when asked to stop he said "OK" and tried to return to his car when the incident happened. 

I'm sure GZ will be sued, we'll see where that goes.  Just as GZ is suing the media in his lawsuits for the purposeful editing they did to injure him.

Should be fun to watch. 

The prosecution was poor because there is no evidence to support their claim.  As Dershowitz said, the special prosecutor should be on charges for manipulating the original charge to the judge and should be disbarred for it.  Furthermore, he believes GZ has a defamation case now against the state of Florida.  The jury spoke, but she's running around calling him a murderer.  I hope he cleans their clocks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

When was GZ "told repeatedly" not to pursue TM? Based on the 911 call, the dispatcher told GZ that he didn't need him to follow TM and at that point, GZ stopped following him. Did he chase after him once the call ended? We don't know for sure. According to GZ's story, he didn't but, again, we don't know that.

This post shows one of the primary issues with this case. The things that people claim to "know" are often incorrect and, in many cases, it's because of what has been reported by the media.

Exactly.   It fits in with the GROSS INCONSISTENCIES nonsense that was stated yesterday.  He was not repeatedly asked not to pursue, he was told "you don't need to do that".  Amazing how the little acorn becomes the mighty oak so quickly.  And now I read that a medical examiner's expert opinion on toxicology should be ignored.  Classic.