Florida, Florida, Florida

[MerrittsMustache]

And he was instructed to NOT follow the kid, and let police handle it.  He didn't. 

Actually, as he was following TM, the police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to do that and so he stopped.

[MerrittsMustache]

If GZ thought he looked like he didn't belong, why didn't he just ask the kid if he lived in the neighborhood, instead of stalking him slowly with his hand probably on his weapon.

GZ thought TM looked like didn't belong so he called the police and tried to keep an eye on the suspicious person so that he could give the police his location once they arrived. Read the police dispatch transcript. Like it or not, it's all right there for you.

Also, if TM thought a "crazy-ass cracker" was following him, why didn't he ask why he was following him?

[forgetful]

GZ thought TM looked like didn't belong so he called the police and tried to keep an eye on the suspicious person so that he could give the police his location once they arrived. Read the police dispatch transcript. Like it or not, it's all right there for you.

Also, if TM thought a "crazy-ass cracker" was following him, why didn't he ask why he was following him?

A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable.  A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here. 

A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing.  They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).

I've read the dispatch report.  GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid.  Those are the only facts of this case.

Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law.  Is he morally responsible, absolutely.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well,  you just called TM an idiot,  and the one who caused his own death.

AMDG

I'm trying to get to the root of who started it.  The jury said after their verdict that they believe TM started a fight, pummelled GZ and eventually was shot in self defense.  To me that's important.

I would assume he started the fight because he was bigger, younger, thought he could take this "cracker ass" (his words, not mine).  I would think if he saw a gun, he would not have done this.  Who knows...none of us.  Can only go on witnesses and the evidence we have. 

I've drawn my conclusions, similar to the jury's.  Unfortunate result.  Seems it could have been avoided with several decisions, each by both men....IMO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you incapacitate the attacker you are no longer acting in self defense, to beat a man to death you must first incapacitate them.  At that point you are attacking a helpless individual and a self defense stance will almost assuredly fail.

The statute says if you fear for your life....it doesn't require you to be passed out after being beaten to death.  Haven't we all gone through an episode where we thought we were going to drown, or in a car accident where it was a very close call....you get that panic where you think it's over.  I see no difference.  If you are getting your brains beat in and you feel like you're about to black out or one more blow is going to do it...I could easily see someone getting to that point and feeling like this is it, I'm about to die.

[Pakuni]

Actually, as he was following TM, the police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to do that and so he stopped.

So he claims.
I think the evidence - outside of Zimmerman's self-serving statement - combined with a little common sense says otherwise.
According to what Zimmerman told police, he followed Martin until Martin ran away from him. We know that as this is happening, Martin is on the phone with a friend saying he's being followed. Zimmerman's 911 call ends and at some point shortly thereafter there's a confrontation, fight and Martin is shot.
What happened in the moments leading up to then is something we'll never know for certain, but this we do know: Up until and through the 911 call, Zimmerman - who,  according to the cops who didn't want him charged, is an overzealous wannabe - is clearly the pursuer, and Martin is the one being pursued.
Now to believe Zimmerman's account, you'd have to believe that Martin - a kid with no violent history whatsoever -ran away scared from Martin, but then suddenly gained a ton of courage and doubled to back to instigate a violent confrontation.
Sorry, but that doesn't pass the stink test.
What does pass the stink test is that Zimmerman, the overzealous wannabe who was upset when TM ran away from him, continued to pursue the kid after the 911 call ended, caught up with him and a confrontation ensued.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And he was instructed to NOT follow the kid, and let police handle it.  He didn't. 

He was not breaking any law by doing so.  Bad judgment, perhaps.  Tired of waiting for the cops to arrive 10 minutes later...possibly. Did he think he could keep his distance, who knows.  If he followed the dispatcher's instructions, kid is alive.  If kid doesn't attack Zimmerman and beat him up, kid is alive.  Two bad choices.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable.  A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here. 

A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing.  They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).

I've read the dispatch report.  GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid.  Those are the only facts of this case.

Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law.  Is he morally responsible, absolutely.

Where are you getting this version of events?  Nowhere does it say in any testimony that TM thought GZ had a gun, let alone a hand on it. Not to his "girlfriend", etc.   

How do you know how approachable he was?  This same "approachable" kid with some of the wonderful comments on his phone, videos, etc, in the rain, wearing a hoodie....maybe he was approachable, maybe he wasn't, but you can't assume that at all.

[Pakuni]

You didn't finish it.  Martin was ALSO an idiot whose actions caused his unnecessary death.  That's the part I'm quibbling with.  Don't attack Zimmerman, and you're alive.  Very simple.  Why are Martin's actions, the ones the ULTIMATELY led to the deathly action completely excused?

C'mon Chicos. You're better than that.
I said I think the verdict was the correct one. In order to acquit, the jury had to find Zimmerman acted out of a reasonable fear for his life. Obviously if I think that, then I also obviously think Martin also was culpable in  his death in that his actions were the cause of Zimmerman's fear for his life.
It shouldn't be that complicated for you.
If you want me to further condemn a dead kid, you're going to be disappointed.

Why focus on Martin's actions as ULTIMATELY leading to his death? Martin doesn't take any action if Zimmerman isn't stalking him. Don't stalk and confront a kid who's walking home from the store and minding his own business and maybe you don't get punched.

[lab_warrior]

He was not breaking any law by doing so.  Bad judgment, perhaps.  Tired of waiting for the cops to arrive 10 minutes later...possibly. Did he think he could keep his distance, who knows.  If he followed the dispatcher's instructions, kid is alive.  If kid doesn't attack Zimmerman and beat him up, kid is alive.  Two bad choices.

Yeah, but for the second bad choice to happen, the first one had to happen. 

[MerrittsMustache]

A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable.  A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here.  

A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing.  They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).

I've read the dispatch report.  GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid.  Those are the only facts of this case.

Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law.  Is he morally responsible, absolutely.

OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.

Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.

Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.

[Pakuni]

I'm trying to get to the root of who started it.  The jury said after their verdict that they believe TM started a fight, pummelled GZ and eventually was shot in self defense.  To me that's important.

Except that's a bastardized version of what one juror said, and four of the other five jurors issued a statement saying they didn't agree with her.

[forgetful]

It seemed like everyone else is making up there version of the events, so figured it was only fair for TM to have some made up to benefit him.

As I said.  All that is known is that GZ chased TM, was told it was not necessary but pursued anyway.  TM, who did nothing suspicious besides getting some food and a drink in the rain, ran away.

Shortly thereafter a fight started.  We know nothing about who instigated it, who had the upper hand, or why it even started.

We know that GZ had minor injuries from the fight (as reported by a physician under oath).  We know that the only finger prints on the gun were GZs.  We know that TM was shot. 

GZ acted rashly and an innocent kid lost his life.

[Pakuni]

OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.

Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.

Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.

Could you show us where Martin's friend ever said he attacked Zimmerman?
(Hint: she didn't)
But why bother letting the facts .... oh, never mind.

[MerrittsMustache]

Could you show us where Martin's friend ever said he attacked Zimmerman?
(Hint: she didn't)
But why bother letting the facts .... oh, never mind.

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/

[forgetful]

OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.

Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.

Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.

Unless you are looking at different court transcripts, his gf did not say TM attacked him.  Rather she says that he yelled to the guy, why are you following me.  Shortly thereafter, he as yelling at GZ to "Get off, Get off", which would imply that GZ attacked TM and was on top during an altercation.  A woman nearby heard TM cry out and saw GZ on top...do you ignore those accounts.  Clearly, you've made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.

[forgetful]

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/

So in other words she never said it under oath, but thinks Trayvon may have thrown the first punch.  And no facts are known about what transpired.

[forgetful]

Lets look at other facts also.  GZ carried his 9mm in a waistband concealed holster (in his back waistband).  He claims that TM pinned him, broke his nose, had him on his back and was pounding his head into the pavement.

GZ then claims that TM saw the gun (which would have been against the ground under GZs body) and grabbed the grip/hammer.  (note there are no finger prints or epidermal cells on the gun from anyone besides GZ).  So it is impossible under GZs scenario to see the gun or reach the gun and the direct evidence indicates otherwise.

So further, a man nearly unconcious and presumably choking on his own blood (GZs words), was able to reach underneath his body (with a 170 lb kid on top of him), pull the gun from the holster, position it between their bodies (as he hit him dead center in the chest) and pull a trigger.  All while TM is pounding his head into the ground and has the upper hand.

GZs story completely contradicts all the evidence collected.  Anyone that is familiar with the type of holster/gun GZ had would agree that the more likely scenario is that GZ had the upper hand.  Had TM pinned so that he had free access to the rear waistband holster, and with a free hand removed his gun from the holster and fired into TMs chest.

[Pakuni]

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/

So, did you bother to listen to the entire interview, or did you just read the Washington Times headline?
Because had you listened to the interview you'd have heard say she believes TM threw a punch at Zimmerman only after Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.
So, tell me, if some strange man follows you around at night, confronts you then grabs you and then you take a swing at him ... are you the attacker?
Also, since you believe Rachel Jeantel here, I assume you believe her entire version of events, including her testimony that she heard Zimmerman confront TM and TM saying "get off, get off."

Watch it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html

[MerrittsMustache]

Lets look at other facts also.  GZ carried his 9mm in a waistband concealed holster (in his back waistband).  He claims that TM pinned him, broke his nose, had him on his back and was pounding his head into the pavement.

GZ then claims that TM saw the gun (which would have been against the ground under GZs body) and grabbed the grip/hammer.  (note there are no finger prints or epidermal cells on the gun from anyone besides GZ).  So it is impossible under GZs scenario to see the gun or reach the gun and the direct evidence indicates otherwise.

So further, a man nearly unconcious and presumably choking on his own blood (GZs words), was able to reach underneath his body (with a 170 lb kid on top of him), pull the gun from the holster, position it between their bodies (as he hit him dead center in the chest) and pull a trigger.  All while TM is pounding his head into the ground and has the upper hand.

GZs story completely contradicts all the evidence collected.  Anyone that is familiar with the type of holster/gun GZ had would agree that the more likely scenario is that GZ had the upper hand.  Had TM pinned so that he had free access to the rear waistband holster, and with a free hand removed his gun from the holster and fired into TMs chest.

How can you even try to have an intelligent discussion about this when you've already acknowledged making things up to bolster your viewpoint?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Interesting dialogue (video) on WSJ about exploitation of the story

http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-are-black-leaders-exploiting-trayvon-martin/A884CEA7-F97C-4E2A-80FF-566B9FFB3BB4.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!A884CEA7-F97C-4E2A-80FF-566B9FFB3BB4

[forgetful]

How can you even try to have an intelligent discussion about this when you've already acknowledged making things up to bolster your viewpoint?

It was fairly obvious that my one post was tongue in cheek and meant to point out how we can all make crap up.  Refer to my above post and tell me how GZs story is plausible.  Also tell me how TM grabbed the gun without leaving any fingerprints or epitheleal cells.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So he claims.
I think the evidence - outside of Zimmerman's self-serving statement - combined with a little common sense says otherwise.
According to what Zimmerman told police, he followed Martin until Martin ran away from him. We know that as this is happening, Martin is on the phone with a friend saying he's being followed. Zimmerman's 911 call ends and at some point shortly thereafter there's a confrontation, fight and Martin is shot.
What happened in the moments leading up to then is something we'll never know for certain, but this we do know: Up until and through the 911 call, Zimmerman - who,  according to the cops who didn't want him charged, is an overzealous wannabe - is clearly the pursuer, and Martin is the one being pursued.
Now to believe Zimmerman's account, you'd have to believe that Martin - a kid with no violent history whatsoever -ran away scared from Martin, but then suddenly gained a ton of courage and doubled to back to instigate a violent confrontation.
Sorry, but that doesn't pass the stink test.
What does pass the stink test is that Zimmerman, the overzealous wannabe who was upset when TM ran away from him, continued to pursue the kid after the 911 call ended, caught up with him and a confrontation ensued.

Maybe.  Remember the one point of testimony by the police officer who tested GZ while questioning him and said "the entire assault was captured on video tape."  GZ's response, "Thank God!".  Of course nothing was captured on video tape, but GZ thought that was the case and thought the video would totally backup what he said.  It was an interrogation technique by the officer.

I found this video does a nice job of going through a bunch of these items, point by point.  Unemotional, methodic, etc.  Interesting

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/bF-Ax5E8EJc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/bF-Ax5E8EJc</a>

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, but for the second bad choice to happen, the first one had to happen. 

Doesn't particularly matter.  They are two, distinct events.  This is exactly what the defense argued, and they are correct.  There was absolutely 0 wrong with what GZ did.  He didn't break the law.  Nothing.  Even with the dispatcher says don't follow him, he does not have to obey, that is not a legal requirement.  Zimmerman being punched...that's a crime.  Zimmerman following Martin, not a crime.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Unless you are looking at different court transcripts, his gf did not say TM attacked him.  Rather she says that he yelled to the guy, why are you following me.  Shortly thereafter, he as yelling at GZ to "Get off, Get off", which would imply that GZ attacked TM and was on top during an altercation.  A woman nearby heard TM cry out and saw GZ on top...do you ignore those accounts.  Clearly, you've made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.

Whoa whoa whoa....you following the NBC edited transcripts here?  LOL.  I hope he sues them to kingdom come on that one.

The sworn testimony shows TM on top and each side said the person screaming out was by a different person.  Experts said it was impossible to tell who was screaming out.  The forensic expert said MARTIN was on top of GZ.  The witnesses said TM on top of GZ.  Where are you seeing GZ on top of TM?

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/09/forensic-pathologist-says-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-when-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/