Zimmerman Faces 2nd Degree Murder

UNT90 · May 17, 2012

So you were assuming CBL was including police and military in his comment?

And no, him having less training shouldn't work in his favor...it means he should have not pursued Martin like the 911 dispatcher instructed him.

Show me any fact anywhere that says this happened. THERE ISN'T ONE.

Stop listening to media reports. Listen to the 911 call again. Think.

There is absolutely NO evidence (in public, anyway) that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin. There is just as much evidence that Martin doubled back and jumped Zimmerman (which is NONE). We don't know what happened. Could ZImmerman have followed Martin against call taker (not police) advice? Yes. If he did, is there anything illegal or even morally wrong with that? No. Nothing. Period.

When you say Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, you are presenting your opinion as fact. Stop.

Green P1 · May 17, 2012

And don't forget many on this board who were quick to believe everything the idiotic media presented. You know, like Zimmerman calling Martin a, GASP, black male.

Of course, these same people don't reverse course when it comes out that NBC altered the 911 call to make it seem like Zimmerman called Martin a, GASP, black male when all he was doing was responding to a question from the call taker who asked, GASP, the race of the suspect. .

Some people want to believe what they want to believe and will use anything to justify that belief. It has nothing to do with truth seeking, just justifying their own prejudiced ideas on how things SHOULD be.

Whereas a few seem to enjoy getting indignantly defensive without ever issuing an opinion on the matter on an INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD.

yyz28 · May 17, 2012

All this back and forth is silly. Bottom line is this - Media reports painted Martin as a kid who simply got shot because he was black. Now, it has become pretty clear that he got shot because he beat the sh!t out of someone with a gun. The challenge the Jury has at this point is convicting Zimmerman if nobody can make a legit case or show proof of why Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman. If he was in a corner and attacked Zimmerman out of self defense, then and ONLY then do you have a case against Zimmerman.

...but everything that led up to that situation is, in my mind, irrelevant. ...I keep hearing that Zimmerman put himself in that situation to have no choice but to pull his weapon. Unless he literally had Martin backed into a corner, Martin could have escaped and not confronted Zimmerman. It appears he did for whatever reason. To put the responsibility for stopping these series of events before they spiraled out of control on Zimmerman is crazy.

...someone may say a prostitute puts herself in a bad position, but if she gets raped by a client, isn't it still rape? Do we defend the perp by attacking the woman? No, we go after the person who committed the crime, no matter the circumstances.

In this case, Assault is a crime. Defending yourself with deadly force isn't. Based on the medical evidence, a fight that could be defined as Assault has occurred. The only question now is who started it. When I look at the evidence, listen to the witness statements that we have and listen to the 911 tapes, it looks like Zimmerman was backing off and Martin confronted or jumped him back near his car. ...but even this is circumstantial.

In the end, I don't think prosecution has a smoking gun or anything that is tight enough to convict... ...and they knew that from the beginning. This is a political trial so they could say "we tried to get justice for Martin" to the race-baiters.

What happened is a tragedy. One young man is dead. Another's life is ruined, no matter the outcome of this trial. ...the folks who should be on trial here is the media for spinning this into something it never was.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 17, 2012

I will add to this what I've already added - the facts will never matter in the eyes of many because a black kid was shot by someone who isn't black. And, additionally, who isn't considered to be Hispanic enough to be a real minority in the eyes of the same idiots...despite the facts that he's, you know, even a Spanish-speaking Hispanic, something that's difficult to find in many areas of the country.

You've got to throw all of the facts out the window and focus on the fact that a black kid was walking home, eating Skittles, drinking tea, and wearing a hoodies got shot by a half-white Hispanic. Nothing else matters to the media and poverty pimping politicans and talking heads.

Lord, this country is stupid.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · May 17, 2012

Show me any fact anywhere that says this happened. THERE ISN'T ONE.

Stop listening to media reports. Listen to the 911 call again. Think.

There is absolutely NO evidence (in public, anyway) that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin. There is just as much evidence that Martin doubled back and jumped Zimmerman (which is NONE). We don't know what happened. Could ZImmerman have followed Martin against call taker (not police) advice? Yes. If he did, is there anything illegal or even morally wrong with that? No. Nothing. Period.

When you say Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, you are presenting your opinion as fact. Stop.

Is there more than one 911 call? Because in the one I heard, the dispatcher asked if he was following the suspect and he replied yes. So I think that fact would would go against your assertion there was NO evidence. As to whether it is strong enough evidence for a conviction or even a trial, that I'm certainly not qualified to know especially since I nor most are not privy to all the evidence (that has to make you happy to hear me say that).

When you say there is no evidence that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, you are misrepresenting the above fact. Stop.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · May 17, 2012

You're not the first person that I have heard ask why they didn't "detain" Zimmerman until the investigation was complete. The problem is that it violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. There is no such thing as "detaining" someone while you conduct an entire investigation. It is called arresting. You can not arrest without cause. You can detain someone while you conduct an INITIAL investigation, which was done. If you simply arrest someone while you conduct an investigation for days, not only are you violating state and federal laws, you are violating the suspect's civil rights, and the defense attorney will seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Not only will it be granted, your entire case will probably be shot to hell because you know that the fact that you unlawfully detained the individual will be presented as evidence. Say bye bye to your case. Oh, and you know that you will not only possibly lose your job and never work as a police officer again, but you will be big trouble with the judge, and you may even end up in jail yourself.

At the time of the initial investigation, they determined there was not enough evidence, or that there was enough reasonable doubt, not to arrest. I know, I know, this one dectective thought he should have been arrested that night. They probably determined that the case was too "flimsy" and to conduct a more thorough investigation and see if there was enough to obtain an arrest warrant.

I understand and am not disagreeing with anything you said in the first paragraph, but its the second paragraph where I struggle to agree with how they handled it. Call me a bleeding heart lib if you like, but in cases where an individual dies and its not readily apparrent that it was purely in self-defense (especially when there is evidence to the contrary - no matter how strong or weak it might be), that the surviving party be detained for a few days while the more thorough investigation is completed (maybe house arrest would be an acceptable alternative) to avoid any flight risks. I know that it may not be protocol for the situation and I can accept that. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with it and in this thread I've voiced my disagreement with it. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.

I appreciate your "level-headed" response Rudy.

Rudy · May 17, 2012

Is there more than one 911 call? Because in the one I heard, the dispatcher asked if he was following the suspect and he replied yes. So I think that fact would would go against your assertion there was NO evidence. As to whether it is strong enough evidence for a conviction or even a trial, that I'm certainly not qualified to know especially since I nor most are not privy to all the evidence (that has to make you happy to hear me say that).

When you say there is no evidence that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, you are misrepresenting the above fact. Stop.

The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin, and he replied "yes". The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied, "Ok." He then said that he had lost sight of Martin, which implies that he had stopped following him. There is also a difference between following and chasing/pursuing which will have to be examined.

Rudy · May 17, 2012

I understand and am not disagreeing with anything you said in the first paragraph, but its the second paragraph where I struggle to agree with how they handled it. Call me a bleeding heart lib if you like, but in cases where an individual dies and its not readily apparrent that it was purely in self-defense (especially when there is evidence to the contrary - no matter how strong or weak it might be), that the surviving party be detained for a few days while the more thorough investigation is completed (maybe house arrest would be an acceptable alternative) to avoid any flight risks. I know that it may not be protocol for the situation and I can accept that. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with it and in this thread I've voiced my disagreement with it. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.

I appreciate your "level-headed" response Rudy.

First of all thank you.

You can not limit the movement of anyone. Even reprimanding them to their house is called House Arrest. I understand you wanting to prevent them from being a flight risk, but that is the price of our system. If they are not under arrest, then you can not keep them from living their life. That is why we have the US Marshals, fugitive task forces, patrol officers, and confidential informants. First, if someone is a person of interest, they have likely been questioned, and have an attorney. If you issue a warrant, contact the attorney and let them know. They will try to get the individual to turn themselves in. IF they decide to hide or run, then you go find them.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 17, 2012

Police did arrest ZImmerman, questioned him, then let him go. That isn't unusual. They saw firsthand his injuries, probably found out pretty quickly he was the neighoborhood watch guy, and surely knew about the steadily increasing number of crimes commited in that neighborhood.

They didn't have enough evidence (and probably still don't) to hold him for something as serious as murder one. Murder two is even going to be difficult to prove here.

In America, they can only hold you indefinitely if you are one of those godless terrorists bent on killing Americans. Zimmerman, by all accounts, isn't a godless terrorist. Although, wait a day or two and the media may try to hit that angle.

UNT90 · May 17, 2012

Is there more than one 911 call? Because in the one I heard, the dispatcher asked if he was following the suspect and he replied yes. So I think that fact would would go against your assertion there was NO evidence. As to whether it is strong enough evidence for a conviction or even a trial, that I'm certainly not qualified to know especially since I nor most are not privy to all the evidence (that has to make you happy to hear me say that).

When you say there is no evidence that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, you are misrepresenting the above fact. Stop.

Wrong.

Zimmerman was following Martin BEFORE the call taker (not police) told him to stop. There is absolutely zero evidence that he continued to follow Martin after told not to do so.

Let's play the definition game:

Follow - "to move behind in the same direction"

Pursue- "to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase."

You know the mischaracterization. STOP.

UNT90 · May 17, 2012

Whereas a few seem to enjoy getting indignantly defensive without ever issuing an opinion on the matter on an INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD.

Funny thing is, people will call you out on INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARDS if you don't have the facts. I've seen you do it on a daily basis when others are wrong in other forums. All I have done is point out what we don't know and blatant mischaracterizations of "evidence" posted by others. As far as not having an opinion one way or another, just remember:

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Edited May 17, 2012 by UNT90

Green P1 · May 18, 2012

Funny thing is, people will call you out on INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARDS if you don't have the facts. I've seen you do it on a daily basis when others are wrong in other forums. All I have done is point out what we don't know and blatant mischaracterizations of "evidence" posted by others. As far as not having an opinion one way or another, just remember:

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yet without going back and checking, I'm almost positive you've posted more than anyone else in this thread?

UNT90 · May 18, 2012

Yet without going back and checking, I'm almost positive you've posted more than anyone else in this thread?

Sometimes not having an opinion is hard work.

forevereagle · May 18, 2012

Sometimes not having an opinion is hard work.

I thought your opinion was we shouldn't judge him.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · May 18, 2012

Wrong.

Zimmerman was following Martin BEFORE the call taker (not police) told him to stop. There is absolutely zero evidence that he continued to follow Martin after told not to do so.

Let's play the definition game:

Follow - "to move behind in the same direction"

Pursue- "to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase."

You know the mischaracterization. STOP.

All right dude...I was incorrectly using pursue as a synonym for follow. You got me there...let me restate:

Its when someone is killed by a person who follows them (not on their property) where I feel it is necessary to detain the following party until a full investigation is complete and it is determined whether their is sufficient evidence to bring the following party to trial for manslaughter or murder.

Feel better?

I don't have some greater agenda...all I am is glad that there will be a trial where the truth should come out. If there's not the evidence for any conviction, fine. If there is, fine. Obviously we disagree about the evidence (or the lack thereof), so I'll leave it at that because I don't want to drag this thread on any longer.

Sadly, there won't be any "winner" no matter the outcome of the trial. Both Martin's and Zimmerman's lives are over/ruined.

GreenMachine · May 18, 2012

I knew none of the local blow hards on this board would even remotely comment on this. I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

I am really disappointed in a few of you. Why no comment on the black nurse killing the white lady? CNN hasn't told you what to think?

UNT90 · May 18, 2012

I am really disappointed in a few of you. Why no comment on the black nurse killing the white lady? CNN hasn't told you what to think?

It's pretty simple.

This doesn't allow people to show how socially enlightened they are, so it will never garner any attention.

Plus, there really is no socially enlightened conclusion to jump to on this one. It's very clear what happened.

yyz28 · May 18, 2012

I am really disappointed in a few of you. Why no comment on the black nurse killing the white lady? CNN hasn't told you what to think?

Nothing to comment on. Nurse killed the lady in cold blood. i don't care the color of any of their skin. There is no hidden agenda by the media in that case. She did it, we know why she did it, there is no question on motive or situation. Very different case.

In the Martin/Zimmerman case, there is question as to what led up to the shooting, all of which is FAAAAAAAR more important than the skin color of EITHER of the men involved (which to clarify isn't important AT ALL). Race aside, I can understand the interest in the case just from a pure "what really happened?" point of view.

It's specifically the racial component of the Martin/Zimmerman case that I reject and am down on the media, many politicians and the typical race-baiters for trying to make an issue when clearly it wasn't. If Zimmerman committed a crime, he should be punished. If not, he should go free. This is the same no matter the race of the alleged victim.

UNT90 · May 19, 2012

Whereas a few seem to enjoy getting indignantly defensive without ever issuing an opinion on the matter on an INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD.

I thought your opinion was we shouldn't judge him.

It was a sarcastic reply to P1's previous post listed above.

And no, my opinion isn't that we shouldn't judge him. My opinion is that WE DON'T KNOW (in case you missed it the previous 50 plus times) enough about the true evidence to judge him. Making that judgement without appropriate knowledge makes you pre-JUDGE-ice.

Edited May 19, 2012 by UNT90

UNT90 · May 19, 2012

Its when someone is killed by a person who follows them (not on their property) where I feel it is necessary to detain the following party until a full investigation is complete and it is determined whether their is sufficient evidence to bring the following party to trial for manslaughter or murder.

Feel better?

No, because, yet again, you state your opinion as fact.

There is absolutely no evidence (known to the public) that tells us whether Zimmerman followed Martin or not after being told by a call taker (NOT POLICE) not to follow Martin. It is just as possible that Martin jumped Zimmerman (again, there is no EVIDENCE of this, either). But you and others completely ignore this possibility because it doesn't fit into the events that you want to believe happened.

EDIT: Or, to be more fair to you, it doesn't fit with what you originally heard reported, then never paid attention to learn the discrepancies, which happens all the time in this country. First report is taken as fact. Hell, many still believe the Columbine shooters were the victims of bullying, which is complete media jump to conclusion bulsh.

Edited May 19, 2012 by UNT90

KRAM1 · May 19, 2012

Sometimes it's just hard to realize that one does not have the real facts on a given situation, and to let the courts sort it all out. UNT90 is 100% correct in stating that we do not KNOW for certainty what happened that night...and neither does the media, Zimmerman's friend's and Family not Trevon's friends and family. And certainly not those of us who can follow it only through the media.

Lots of folks want to share their thoughts on the matter and that's fine, but remember...no one here has anything near enough real information to know which way this will go...and neither does the press or the "court of public opinion". Many in the media and with those close to the parties in these sort of things stir up way too much negativity because they let their emotions run ahead of their brains. Many here do the same, but only the courts can sort this out...and even then we may not know for 100% certainty what really happened that awful night!

UNT90 · May 19, 2012

Sometimes it's just hard to realize that one does not have the real facts on a given situation, and to let the courts sort it all out. UNT90 is 100% correct in stating that we do not KNOW for certainty what happened that night...and neither does the media, Zimmerman's friend's and Family not Trevon's friends and family. And certainly not those of us who can follow it only through the media.

Lots of folks want to share their thoughts on the matter and that's fine, but remember...no one here has anything near enough real information to know which way this will go...and neither does the press or the "court of public opinion". Many in the media and with those close to the parties in these sort of things stir up way too much negativity because they let their emotions run ahead of their brains. Many here do the same, but only the courts can sort this out...and even then we may not know for 100% certainty what really happened that awful night!

You will see Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and all the other race baiters holding demonstrations outside the courthouse during the trial. Why, you may ask? Zimmerman was arrested, right? The system is doing what it is "supposed" to, right?

So why will they be protesting?

1. To influence and intimidate the judge and jury. You will probably even hear threats of violence in the streets if Zimmerman is not convicted. Make no mistake, this will be an orchestrated effort to influence the verdict.

2. To get themselves attention. They could give 2 craps about the Martin family.

Edited May 19, 2012 by UNT90