Florida, Florida, Florida

[tower912]

I think GZ is 98% responsible for the events.  IMO, he is a coward and a wannabe who combined those two character flaws for a tragic outcome.   However, based on my admittedly limited understanding of how the Florida laws are written, I don't blame the jury for acquitting him.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

I notice that all of your above scenarios cconveniently begin AFTER GZ started following TM.  That is not in dispute.  It is THE ACTION that leads to all possible outcomes.  It was initiated by GZ.  TM is dead.  GM started that chain of events.  Those are the facts. 

Nice comment again about TM getting high.  No wonder you are arguing so vehemently...it is who you are.

It doesn't matter.  You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take.  He followed him....that is not a crime.  He can be there all he wants.  The next action is a whole new action. 

Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement. 

If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die?  Really?  That's absurd.  If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him.  The fight did, which was a separate incident.  An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home.  TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car.  GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.

[karavotsos]

Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement. 

If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die?  Really?  That's absurd.  If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him. 

This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. 

[forgetful]

It doesn't matter.  You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take.  He followed him....that is not a crime.  He can be there all he wants.  The next action is a whole new action. 

Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement. 

If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die?  Really?  That's absurd.  If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him.  The fight did, which was a separate incident.  An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home.  TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car.  GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.

My guess would be that you did not take logic anywhere.  We will agree to disagree on this one. 

I will say in reference to the sociology comments earlier that I think the predominant issue determining which side people are on is who they can most relate to, GZ or TM. 

No one wants to feel guilty, so if they relate to GZ, he acted rationally and defended himself.  If you relate to or can relate to TM, then he was murdered as no one wants to get stalked and gunned down.

I will say that, what is known is that Trayvon did ask GZ why he was following him.  We do not know what GZ said back to him, before the fight broke out.  So Trayvon was not looking for a fight, prior to GZs response...have to ask yourself, if you believe Trayvon started the fight (which there is not concrete data for), what did GZ say that incensed him so much, we'll never know as the only other witness is dead.

[Eldon]

The sociological question is indeed interesting.

I think people relate what happened to their own experiences.

I used to work at a department store in high school and one of the security guys was a wannabe cop.  Sometimes, I used to help him out with shoplifters and potential shoplifters.  It's almost as if he would get giddy when he thought someone was going to steal something.  Just like GZ, this guy took CJ classes, too.  Not sure if he went on police ride-a-longs like GZ, but I wouldnt put it past him.

Wannabe cops find the adrenaline of chasing down the bad guy exhilarating. 

Such experience is probably more than a marginal part of the reason why I find myself on the "TM side" of the argument.  Though I hate that there are even "sides" to this case.

[ATL MU Warrior]

It doesn't matter.  You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take.  He followed him....that is not a crime.  He can be there all he wants.  The next action is a whole new action. 

Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement. 

If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die?  Really?  That's absurd.  If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him.  The fight did, which was a separate incident.  An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home.  TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car.  GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.

Thank you for agreeing with me.  Nobody has said that the act of following is what killed him.  The act of following is however, what set off the entire chain of events that ultimately led to TM's death.  As a result, if GZ doesn't follow him, the entire chain of events never happens and TM is still alive.  There are no subsequent actions if that first action is not taken so your argument, while hysterical, is ridiculous.  Of course there are multiple possible outcomes, but they all start from one point, one action, which is GZ following TM. 

As far as the "he hit me first" comment, WTF does that have to do anything?  I'm not trying to justify TM's actions.  I am not defending him.  So, again, throwing this little nugget into the conversation serves zero purpose other than you trying to make yourself feel superior to someone (it's what my kids do...).  Classy guy that Chicos.

Gotta run.  It's been fun. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. 

+1

[mu_hilltopper]

As far as the "he hit me first" comment, WTF does that have to do anything?

Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event.  There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day.   Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first.   While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one.  That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.  

Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.

This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman.  If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull.  If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.

[Pakuni]

Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event.  There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day.   Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first.   While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one.  That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.  

Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.

This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman.  If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull.  If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.

Problem here is, outside of GZ's self-serving statement, there's zero evidence Trayvon Martin "started a fight." In fact, the testimony from the girl Martin was on the phone with indicates otherwise. Who's telling the truth? I suspect we'll never know. Both sides obviously have incentive to make the other look like the aggressor. Of course, we do know that GZ was following TM, causing TM - by GZ's own account - to run away. Does it make sense that TM would run away .... and then go start a fight?
Regardless, seems like plenty of arguments here are based on a quite possibly false premise.

Oh, and let's not get overly dramatic about "smashing skulls." The ME who examined Zimmerman's injuries testified they were "insignificant." He had two small cuts on his head. There was no smashed skull.

[Hards Alumni]

Problem here is, outside of GZ's self-serving statement, there's zero evidence Trayvon Martin "started a fight." In fact, the testimony from the girl Martin was on the phone with indicates otherwise. Who's telling the truth? I suspect we'll never know. Both sides obviously have incentive to make the other look like the aggressor. Of course, we do know that GZ was following TM, causing TM - by GZ's own account - to run away. Does it make sense that TM would run away .... and then go start a fight?
Regardless, seems like plenty of arguments here are based on a quite possibly false premise.

Totally agree.  There are a lot of people here taking what they think happened and then justifying their side of the argument.  The fact of the matter is that the ONLY person alive that knows what happened has a lot invested.  We can speculate all day as to who started the fight, and who seemed suspicious, and what should have happened.

The fact of the matter is that someone is dead.  And someone else is not, and is responsible for that person's death.  I think the burden of proof of the accused should be IMMENSE. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.

That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all.  She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.  

She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.

That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all.  She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.  

She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.

That is hardly "overwhelming" evidence.  It is circumstantial based on an assumption. 

[mu_hilltopper]

That is hardly "overwhelming" evidence.  It is circumstantial based on an assumption. 

True.  Based on the assumptions of the best person to make them.  You are correct, I shouldn't have used the phrase "evidence."

[Hards Alumni]

Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.

That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all.  She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.  

She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.

Honestly, I don't know how the prosecution didn't get that tossed out.  It is entirely speculative.  Unless she heard TM say over the phone to her, "I'm going to jump this crazy cracker." or something along those lines.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event.  There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day.   Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first.   While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one.  That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.  

Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.

This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman.  If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull.  If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.

The only way you can think this entire episode boils down to TM "started a fight" and is to blame for his own death is to willfully ignore the sequence of events that led up to that point and their impact on TM's subsequent behavior.

TM wouldn't have needed to "start a fight" had GZ not initiated the entire sequence of events by following him around in the rain.  Hell, maybe TM felt threatened enough that he believed he was acting in self-defense.  Who knows?  If he did, I wouldn't blame him because I am pretty sure I would feel the same way.  

[Pakuni]

Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.

That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all.  She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.  

She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.

Why do you guys keep trotting out the "first punch" thing out of context?
Her full statement was that she thought TM threw the first punch ONLY AFTER Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.

Watch the interview in which she stated that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html

I don't know about you, but if I'm walking home at night and some strange guy starts following me, and keeps following me after I run away, and then he grabs and tries to restrain me, there's a pretty good chance he's getting punched. And I would be well within my rights to punch him.

And since you think Rachel Jeantel is "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions" do you not agree?

Here are some more statements from "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions"

- Jeantel testified Wednesday that her friend's last words were "Get off! Get off!" before Martin's phone went silent.

- "No sir, he would not allow me on the phone with him if he was about the have a fight," Jeantel answered. (My edit: That's weird, because every time I'm about to jump somebody and smash his skull, I make sure I'm on the phone while doing it. Who needs two hands in a fight?)

- During their conversation, Trayvon said a "creepy" man was staring at him and wanted to get away, Jeantel said. Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said. Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said. "I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said. Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?" She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "

[Pakuni]

Honestly, I don't know how the prosecution didn't get that tossed out.  It is entirely speculative.  Unless she heard TM say over the phone to her, "I'm going to jump this crazy cracker." or something along those lines.

She never testified about who she thought threw the first punch. It's something she said in an interview after the trial.
But, as I point out above, it's being quoted here completely out of context.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Why do you guys keep trotting out the "first punch" thing out of context?
Her full statement was that she thought TM threw the first punch AFTER Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.

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

I don't know about you, but if I'm walking home at night and some strange guy starts following me, and keeps following me after I run away, and then he grabs and tries to restrain me, there's a pretty good chance he's getting punched. And I would be well within my rights to punch him.

And since you think Rachel Jeantel is "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions" do you not agree?

Here are some more statements from "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions"

- Jeantel testified Wednesday that her friend's last words were "Get off! Get off!" before Martin's phone went silent.

- "No sir, he would not allow me on the phone with him if he was about the have a fight," Jeantel answered. (My edit: That's weird, because every time I'm about to jump somebody and smash his skull, I make sure I'm on the phone while doing it. Who needs two hands in a fight?)

- During their conversation, Trayvon said a "creepy" man was staring at him and wanted to get away, Jeantel said. Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said. Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said. "I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said. Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?" She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "

Jesus.  I didn't watch a minute of the trial and haven't really read anything about it other than this thread (sad I know) but WTF?  If the above is accurate I believe TM was well within his rights to try beat the living daylights out of GZ.  I certainly would have.  What a screwed up situation. 

[tower912]

If that statement is accurate, TM was standing his ground against an unknown, creepy stalker.

[forgetful]

I'm also curious why some here are so keen on believing GZ on his version of the events.

This is a man who:
Was arrested for battery of a law enforcement officer.
Had a restraining order against him for domestic violence.
Conspired with his wife to commit fraud in regards to their assets.

Even his recent "heroic" effort in rescuing the car crash is turning out to be a fraud as the officer on the scene may have called GZ to get to the scene of the accident to help.  He arrived after everyone was out of the car with a fire extinguisher, sprayed it on the car...got in and left.

Now, his own account of the TM incident has changed several times and his current version of the events contradict his re-enactment of the crime.  Yet some here are willing to believe everything he says as fact and disregard others testimony as not accurate or trustworthy.

Moreover, people are willing to ignore GZs violent past, but want to drag TM down for possible prior drug use that would have nothing to do with the current incident.

[ATWizJr]

I'm also curious why some here are so keen on believing GZ on his version of the events.

This is a man who:
Was arrested for battery of a law enforcement officer.
Had a restraining order against him for domestic violence.
Conspired with his wife to commit fraud in regards to their assets.

Even his recent "heroic" effort in rescuing the car crash is turning out to be a fraud as the officer on the scene may have called GZ to get to the scene of the accident to help.  He arrived after everyone was out of the car with a fire extinguisher, sprayed it on the car...got in and left.

Now, his own account of the TM incident has changed several times and his current version of the events contradict his re-enactment of the crime.  Yet some here are willing to believe everything he says as fact and disregard others testimony as not accurate or trustworthy.

Moreover, people are willing to ignore GZs violent past, but want to drag TM down for possible prior drug use that would have nothing to do with the current incident.

you are aptly named on this board.  Only better name would be oblivious.   

[tower912]

Is something he said inaccurate?   If not, why is it ok to examine the history of the deceased and not the history of the shooter?

[forgetful]

  you are aptly named on this board.  Only better name would be oblivious.   

Instead of unproductive name calling, would you care to address the comment.  All the items I posted are fact (with the exception of the recent hero case as that is too new).  Granted, GZ did agree to a plea deal of resisting arrest, instead of assault on an officer. Personally I think they are irrelevant as the key issue to me is:

He got out of the car and chased a kid.  Everything thereafter hinges upon that event, which was a rash, ill-advised act that led to the loss of a life.

I address the comments on GZ, for those that focus on his recounting of the events as material fact.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My guess would be that you did not take logic anywhere.  We will agree to disagree on this one. 

I will say in reference to the sociology comments earlier that I think the predominant issue determining which side people are on is who they can most relate to, GZ or TM. 

No one wants to feel guilty, so if they relate to GZ, he acted rationally and defended himself.  If you relate to or can relate to TM, then he was murdered as no one wants to get stalked and gunned down.

I will say that, what is known is that Trayvon did ask GZ why he was following him.  We do not know what GZ said back to him, before the fight broke out.  So Trayvon was not looking for a fight, prior to GZs response...have to ask yourself, if you believe Trayvon started the fight (which there is not concrete data for), what did GZ say that incensed him so much, we'll never know as the only other witness is dead.

Took it, got an A.   I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class  about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.

For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know?  It's amazing the leaps of faith you take.  According to GZ, he was looking for a fight.   Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does.  Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events?  What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight.  If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.

I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him.  This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. 

Glad you are amused.

GZ doesn't follow TM, he doesn't die.....  Half truth.  It was a leading event, but didn't cause him to die.    Took another event, a fight, likely started by the Trayvon (that's what GZ said, that's what the jurors believed)...don't get into the fight, go to your home, run away, etc...you aren't dead.  Pretty simple.  Every event has a preceding event.  The preceding event leads to the following events, but there is always a chance to go down the other fork in the road, or the other actions.

Ray Allen hits a tie breaking 3, but it doesn't happen without a great rebound by Bosch and a pass to him.  That doesn't happen without a James 3 pointer prior to that.  Series of events.  TM, you are living if you don't get into a fight with GZ and pound his head into the concrete and break his nose.  Can't get any more simple that that.  It took MORE than GZ being there to lead to his death, a lot more.