Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[UNT90]

Wow. This one takes the cake. I'm sucked back in...

Are you saying he deserved to die? What exactly caused his death that he was responsible for? Walking home?

How about for attacking Zimmermam? Have you even considered that possibility, or have you convinced yourself that Zimmerman must have attacked Martin?

How do you know he was walking home? We're you there? Are are you just choosing to believe his grieving parents?

Edited July 16, 2013 by UNT90

[MeanGreenTexan]

How about for attacking Zimmermam? Have you even considered that possibility, or have you convinced yourself that Zimmerman must have attacked Martin?

How do you know he was walking home? We're you there? Are are you just choosing to believe his grieving parents?

There is only one man on earth who knows who attacked who that night... and he'll never tell. As for knowing if he was walking home or not, that point was never argued, ever. He lived in the neighborhood he died in, like 100 yards from his house. Are you seriously going to try and argue that?

Yes. It is entirely possible that Martin attacked Zimmerman... once Zimmerman began pursuing him on foot, armed. Not originally, or we would have heard it on the 911 call.

You cannot deny that Zimmerman was an aggressor here can you? I've asked you a few times, yet you refuse to say yes or no.

The 911 tape is damning, and really, it's the only thing we know for sure until the police show up and find a dead person. It would be one thing if Zimmerman said: "Hey, this kid just cussed me out and he's coming at me", or "this kid just tried to beat me up" on his 911 call. That would put Martin in an aggressor role. Instead, he said Martin looks like a "suspicious guy". Martin RUNS AWAY. Zimmerman followed Martin and after that, all we have are conflicting stories... but we do know one thing: A young man needlessly died.

He could have smoked pot every single day. That does not mean he deserved to die.

[RAGEMASTER5000]

do you think Martin should have run away, or is your avoidance stratagem only applied to Zimmerman?

He did run away once (Zimmerman's words). He should have continued to run and not engage Zimmerman. That was not a good idea. But there is no situation if Zimmerman doesn't try to take matters into his own hands. Between a 17 year old and a 29 year old I would bet on the latter acting more responsible. Martin could have avoided the situation by continuing to run, but Zimmerman could have avoided this by staying in his car. Sure Martin could have turned around and tried to pursue Zimmerman, and that would be a completely different situation. Zimmerman is the first person that could have decided to avoid the situation. You could go further and say that Martin could have avoided it before that if he stayed at home.

[Mean Green 93-98]

There is only one man on earth who knows who attacked who that night... and he'll never tell. As for knowing if he was walking home or not, that point was never argued, ever. He lived in the neighborhood he died in, like 100 yards from his house. Are you seriously going to try and argue that?

Yes. It is entirely possible that Martin attacked Zimmerman... once Zimmerman began pursuing him on foot, armed. Not originally, or we would have heard it on the 911 call.

You cannot deny that Zimmerman was an aggressor here can you? I've asked you a few times, yet you refuse to say yes or no.

The 911 tape is damning, and really, it's the only thing we know for sure until the police show up and find a dead person. It would be one thing if Zimmerman said: "Hey, this kid just cussed me out and he's coming at me", or "this kid just tried to beat me up" on his 911 call. That would put Martin in an aggressor role. Instead, he said Martin looks like a "suspicious guy". Martin RUNS AWAY. Zimmerman followed Martin and after that, all we have are conflicting stories... but we do know one thing: A young man needlessly died.

He could have smoked pot every single day. That does not mean he deserved to die.

I think we're all in agreement that this was an avoidable death, and wish that both sides could have acted differently to prevent that. Both sides.

If Trayvon was looking to commit burglary that night, my view would be somewhat shifted.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

You could go further and say that Martin could have avoided it before that if he stayed at home.

Druggies don't stay at home if there is no food there and they get the munchies.

[UNT90]

There is only one man on earth who knows who attacked who that night... and he'll never tell. As for knowing if he was walking home or not, that point was never argued, ever. He lived in the neighborhood he died in, like 100 yards from his house. Are you seriously going to try and argue that?

Yes. It is entirely possible that Martin attacked Zimmerman... once Zimmerman began pursuing him on foot, armed. Not originally, or we would have heard it on the 911 call.

You cannot deny that Zimmerman was an aggressor here can you? I've asked you a few times, yet you refuse to say yes or no.

The 911 tape is damning, and really, it's the only thing we know for sure until the police show up and find a dead person. It would be one thing if Zimmerman said: "Hey, this kid just cussed me out and he's coming at me", or "this kid just tried to beat me up" on his 911 call. That would put Martin in an aggressor role. Instead, he said Martin looks like a "suspicious guy". Martin RUNS AWAY. Zimmerman followed Martin and after that, all we have are conflicting stories... but we do know one thing: A young man needlessly died.

He could have smoked pot every single day. That does not mean he deserved to die.

Did you follow this case? Zimmerman did tell what happened. It was played in the courtroom on video by the prosecution. There was a forensic expert that testified that Zimmerman's account of the confrontation matched the forensic evidence.

So, you would have to believe that Zimmerman was smart enough to tell the truth about the confrontation, yet lie about how the confrontation started. Does he really strike you as that smart?

You are fine with supposition about Zimmerman's state of mind, no matter how far fetched that may be, but you aren't ok with supposition about Trayvon Martin's state of mind? Why is that?

Could it be that you already had your mind made up before you heard one piece of evidence? If I was motivated enough, I would go back through the initial thread on this subject and point out posts where people like you were more than willing to believe every negative thing, regardless of any basis of truth, that was put out by the news media. The prejudice in that thread was simply amazing (yes, prejudice, as defined by websters).

Why do you think that is?

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I think we're all in agreement that this was an avoidable death, and wish that both sides could have acted differently to prevent that. Both sides.

If Trayvon was looking to commit burglary that night, my view would be somewhat shifted.

Yes. But...how was Zimmerman to know what he was doing? Given the recent crimes in the neighborhood, what is he supposed to think about strange kids in the neighborhood?

I don't know everyone on our subdivision, but have run kids off the local elementary school property twice, approached a truck rolling slowly then parking in the alley between my house and my neighbor's house, and confronted a guy with a camera in front of my house.

The first incident was two teenagers egging the elementary schools' electronic sign out front. We were returning home from Braums; it was in the afternoon. I stopped our truck in the middle of the road, approached the stunned kids, and took the eggs away from them. I asked them who the hell they thought would pay for the sign if the damaged it.

Neither knew what to say, they were just standing there frozen. When they didn't answer, I told them to get the hell back home before I called the police. The split as fast as they could in opposite directions, so I suppose each went to his own house.

Another time, I was out on my nightly jog and saw two more teenagers loitering near the electronic sign. I stopped running, took off my headphones, and asked the why they were standing on the street corner this late at night on a school night. One said, "Nothing." I said "good," and get the hell home before I call the police. They also scattered.

Last week, a truck I'd never seen was creeping slowly down our alley and stopped between our house and the neighbors. The driver was fiddling with something in his lap. It was getting near sunset, and I was in the side yard watering some plants. I dropped the hose and began walking towards the truck. The guy looked up and took off. He turned the corner, which led to the front of our house, I walked out to the sidewalk and took his license plate number as he drove away.

A couple of years ago, I was in the process of removing a tree stump from I tree I had cut down when a guy walked by with his dog. I didn't think anything of it because adults walk and jog in our neighborhood pretty frequently. Anyway, a few minutes later, I see this guy again, sans dog, but with a camera in his hand.

So, I picked up the ax I'd used to cut down the tree and met him there on the sidewalk. I asked him what he thought he was going to take a picture of. He said, "Nothing" (maybe he was the loitering "nothing" kid's dad?) and began to walk away. I stayed on the sidewalk, ax in hand, until he disappeared onto the next block over.

We've had vandalism in our neighborhood, like any other. Teenagers trashing the pool. Egged houses and cars. Dead rabbits and cats left on doorsteps.

A middle school was built a couple of years ago about a half mile from us. During the time is was built, there were several thefts from open garages as well as an attempted break in. Fortunately, there was someone at home during the attempted break in and the polce were called.

Currently, there is street construction at one of the subdivision entrances. I've got a stay at home wife and two kids aged seven and younger. My inclination toward strangers and loiterers in the neighborhood is not to be friendly. I'm not particularly worried about whether people think I'm nice or not. I've pay the mortgage and taxes on a house here and a yong family inside or near it.

To some degree, we know Zimmerman felt the same way about various bits of vandalism and crime in his neighborhood. THe only difference between me and a guy like Zimmerman is that I don't own a gun. I'm perfectly content to confront strangers and loiterers directlly. The ax I had the one time was just there because I'd cut down a tree and was still cutting through the roots on the stump to remove it.

And, as far as I know, we don't have a neighborhood watch.

The point is, everyone wants to second quess Martin and ZImmerman. They both could have played their roles differently. But, I can see the mindset of a guy wanting to protect his neighborhood based on past events. The death was a tragedy. Like I said before, both had chips on their shoulders had caused the situation to exscalate.

(By the way, I've cut down all the trees and bushes I wanted to remove...so, you are free to approach me while I'm watering the new landscaping and whatnot. The ax is stashed safely away in the garage. Take a picture if you like!)

Edited July 16, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[FirefightnRick]

The article clearly states she BELIEVES Martin threw the first punch. And she THINKS he got mad and attacked. Nothing definitive like your recap suggests.

It's not my recap, it's CNN's.

Rick

[Mean Green 93-98]

Yes. But...how was Zimmerman to know what he was doing? Given the recent crimes in the neighborhood, what is he supposed to think about strange kids in the neighborhood?

I don't know everyone on our subdivision, but have run kids off the local elementary school property twice, approached a truck rolling slowly then parking in the alley between my house and my neighbor's house, and confronted a guy with a camera in front of my house.

The first incident was two teenagers egging the elementary schools' electronic sign out front. We were returning home from Braums; it was in the afternoon. I stopped our truck in the middle of the road, approached the stunned kids, and took the eggs away from them. I asked them who the hell they thought would pay for the sign if the damaged it.

Neither knew what to say, they were just standing there frozen. When they didn't answer, I told them to get the hell back home before I called the police. The split as fast as they could in opposite directions, so I suppose each went to his own house.

Another time, I was out on my nightly jog and saw two more teenagers loitering near the electronic sign. I stopped running, took off my headphones, and asked the why they were standing on the street corner this late at night on a school night. One said, "Nothing." I said "good," and get the hell home before I call the police. They also scattered.

Last week, a truck I'd never seen was creeping slowly down our alley and stopped between our house and the neighbors. The driver was fiddling with something in his lap. It was getting near sunset, and I was in the side yard watering some plants. I dropped the hose and began walking towards the truck. The guy looked up and took off. He turned the corner, which led to the front of our house, I walked out to the sidewalk and took his license plate number as he drove away.

A couple of years ago, I was in the process of removing a tree stump from I tree I had cut down when a guy walked by with his dog. I didn't think anything of it because adults walk and jog in our neighborhood pretty frequently. Anyway, a few minutes later, I see this guy again, sans dog, but with a camera in his hand.

So, I picked up the ax I'd used to cut down the tree and met him there on the sidewalk. I asked him what he thought he was going to take a picture of. He said, "Nothing" (maybe he was the loitering "nothing" kid's dad?) and began to walk away. I stayed on the sidewalk, ax in hand, until he disappeared onto the next block over.

We've had vandalism in our neighborhood, like any other. Teenagers trashing the pool. Egged houses and cars. Dead rabbits and cats left on doorsteps.

A middle school was built a couple of years ago about a half mile from us. During the time is was built, there were several thefts from open garages as well as an attempted break in. Fortunately, there was someone at home during the attempted break in and the polce were called.

Currently, there is street construction at one of the subdivision entrances. I've got a stay at home wife and two kids aged seven and younger. My inclination toward strangers and loiterers in the neighborhood is not to be friendly. I'm not particularly worried about whether people think I'm nice or not. I've pay the mortgage and taxes on a house here and a yong family inside or near it.

To some degree, we know Zimmerman felt the same way about various bits of vandalism and crime in his neighborhood. THe only difference between me and a guy like Zimmerman is that I don't own a gun. I'm perfectly content to confront strangers and loiterers directlly. The ax I had the one time was just there because I'd cut down a tree and was still cutting through the roots on the stump to remove it.

And, as far as I know, we don't have a neighborhood watch.

The point is, everyone wants to second quess Martin and ZImmerman. They both could have played their roles differently. But, I can see the mindset of a guy wanting to protect his neighborhood based on past events. The death was a tragedy. Like I said before, both had chips on their shoulders had caused the situation to exscalate.

(By the way, I've cut down all the trees and bushes I wanted to remove...so, you are free to approach me while I'm watering the new landscaping and whatnot. The ax is stashed safely away in the garage. Take a picture if you like!)

Sure, I can look at what Zimmerman did and understand why he did what he did. I can also look at what Martin did and understand why he did what he did. But with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if either or both had done differently.

[UNT Five&Dime]

It's not my recap, it's CNN's.

Rick

Eh, since there were no quotations and I did not find that wording on their site I assumed it was your summation. Besides, the liberal media would never say that.

Either way, it misrepresented the linked article. I was just trying to point that out for anyone too lazy to go read (which I usually am).

[UNTexas]

I love that it's ever so "simple" and everyone knows the true narrative...when in fact what Zimmerman supporters have clung to this entire time, and the jury used to reach their verdict, is that there was NOBODY who I. s still breathing (and not named George Zimmerman) who can say conclusively what happened.

Let me play what if too (and couch it in a manner that seems definitive since that's apparently ok for the purposes of this thread). If my daughter, when she reached her teens, is walking home from the store and realizes that there is a vehicle following her I would expect that she might duck between a few houses to elude what she could only assume is a pedophile or worse. Then, if she continues to walk and realizes that this vehicle is still behind her, I would expect that she would get on the phone (hopefully to me) and might have a few choice words to say about the guy who's following her. And then, if that person decides to live out his lifelong fantasy of playing cop (though he's been rejected by actual police departments) and approaches my daughter to grab her and detain her because she's "suspicious" then I would expect that her response would be to beat the living shit out of the strange man who has accosted her. And I would condone, expect, and encourage her to contine beating him until the threat is subdued. And if he shot my daughter and killed her I'd expect that he would concoct some outlandish story about how she lay in wait to ambush him because he's embarrassed about getting owned by a teenage girl.

And I'd expect that he would be convicted or that he had better learn how to hide from me for the rest of his natural life.

Your example is pretty weak. Do you seriously think a jury would believe your teenage girl was putting a 29 year old man's life in danger? No. Guilty of 2nd degree murder. Every time. Trayvon wasn't the cute little 12 year old the media and special interest groups portrayed him to be. He was 6'2" and I seriously doubt Zimmerman carded Trayvon before he got his beat down from Trayvon. Judging from your posts I suppose you've heard it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6? (Six in this case) Please prove Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. The State of Florida sure couldn't. Whatever we think about him is irrelevant. Additionally, Trayvon wasn't the little saint they presented him as. However, that evidence was suppressed. Two awkward people met in the night and one lived to tell the tale. That is why it's simple. The G couldn't prove the case from the second Trayvon died.

Either way I think it's comical that everyone calls Trayvon a child but if he were the killer he is an adult.

(The volunteer work they spoke of him doing wasn't just the neighborhood watch. He helped tutor teens, some of which were African American teens.)

[emmitt01]

"Please prove Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. The State of Florida sure couldn't. Whatever we think about him is irrelevant. Additionally, Trayvon wasn't the little saint they presented him as. However, that evidence was suppressed. Two awkward people met in the night and one lived to tell the tale. That is why it's simple. The G couldn't prove the case from the second Trayvon died."

Nobody has eve argued that Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. I don't doubt that he did. What I do doubt, quite strongly in fact, is that Zimmerman would get the upper hand in a fight with Trayvon Martin REGARDLESS of who started the fight. So, yeah, he'd have shot him either way.

And as to UNT90's repeated claims that forensic evidence backs up Zimmerman's claims that's a little disengenuine. Forensic evidence backs up that Trayvon Martin was beating on him. Nothing more, nothing less. As a police officer (the real kind, not the rejected and now playing neighborhood watch kind) I can tell you definitively that if you try to physically restrain someone because they are "suspicious" they are perfectly capable of getting the upper hand on you. And, yes, you can find yourself on the ground beneath them. But that's why we have cover officers, radios, tactics and the like.

And have I seen COUNTLESS suspects who concoct stories that are convenient to their cause right there on the spot. It's not as impossible as UNT90 would like you to believe. If I had just shot a 17 year old because he got thr upper hand in a fight you can be damn sure that painting him as an aggressive thug would be a pretty easy decision to make...and quickly.

Am I saying George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin? Nope. What I am saying is that only one person knows the truth.

And one other thing, I'm literally pissing myself in laughter at the thought that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system is relevant. I know that my favorite part from Half Baked is when they went out and started beating people up. And I'm sure we all enjoyed the fight scenes in every Cheech and Chong movie. Marijuana is a real riot inciter...oh, wait...

(And, yes, my daughter when she's 17 will be able to kick George Zimmerman's ass. Again, real cop dad)

Edited July 16, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

"Please prove Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. The State of Florida sure couldn't. Whatever we think about him is irrelevant. Additionally, Trayvon wasn't the little saint they presented him as. However, that evidence was suppressed. Two awkward people met in the night and one lived to tell the tale. That is why it's simple. The G couldn't prove the case from the second Trayvon died."

Nobody has eve argued that Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. I don't doubt that he did. What I do doubt, quite strongly in fact, is that Zimmerman would get the upper hand in a fight with Trayvon Martin REGARDLESS of who started the fight. So, yeah, he'd have shot him either way.

And as to UNT90's repeated claims that forensic evidence backs up Zimmerman's claims that's a little disengenuine. Forensic evidence backs up that Trayvon Martin was beating on him. Nothing more, nothing less. As a police officer (the real kind, not the rejected and now playing neighborhood watch kind) I can tell you definitively that if you try to physically restrain someone because they are "suspicious" they are perfectly capable of getting the upper hand on you. And, yes, you can find yourself on the ground beneath them. But that's why we have cover officers, radios, tactics and the like.

And have I seen COUNTLESS suspects who concoct stories that are convenient to their cause right there on the spot. It's not as impossible as UNT90 would like you to believe. If I had just shot a 17 year old because he got thr upper hand in a fight you can be damn sure that painting him as an aggressive thug would be a pretty easy decision to make...and quickly.

Am I saying George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin? Nope. What I am saying is that only one person knows the truth.

And one other thing, I'm literally pissing myself in laughter at the thought that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system is relevant. I know that my favorite part from Half Baked is when they went out and started beating people up. And I'm sure we all enjoyed the fight scenes in every Cheech and Chong movie. Marijuana is a real riot inciter...oh, wait...

(And, yes, my daughter when she's 17 will be able to kick George Zimmerman's ass. Again, real cop dad)

Why would Zimmerman (who is not a cop, and didn't know Florida law) pick the one area, the one thing, to lie about (how the confrontation occurred) that the case pretty much hinged on, and the only thing that many are holding on to for guilt (many of the same people that believed the altered NBC 911 call, believed the grainy sally port video and pronounced Zimmerman injury free).

Your right, criminals lie all the time, but their lies don't magically start and stop to conveniently match your or anyone else's imagined events of the evening. They simply don't have that ability, especially having the crap beat out of them, probably pissing their pants in fear, and then taking a human life.

That just doesn't happen.

[emmitt01]

Why would Zimmerman (who is not a cop, and didn't know Florida law) pick the one area, the one thing, to lie about (how the confrontation occurred) that the case pretty much hinged on, and the only thing that many are holding on to for guilt (many of the same people that believed the altered NBC 911 call, believed the grainy sally port video and pronounced Zimmerman injury free).Your right, criminals lie all the time, but their lies don't magically start and stop to conveniently match your or anyone else's imagined events of the evening. They simply don't have that ability, especially having the crap beat out of them, probably pissing their pants in fear, and then taking a human life.That just doesn't happen.

So you're telling me, honestly and not just because it fits your quest to prove the liberal media wrong, that a grown man who just got his ass whooped and had to resort to killing a 17 year old wouldn't spin the story to make it sound as if the kid "ambushed" him?

Have you never been in a fight? Ever gotten into it with a sibling, or seen a child who has? And you're telling me that the "He started it!" defense isn't readily upon someone's lips? This has nothing to do with special knowledge of Florida law, this is simply telling a story in a light least likely to get you in trouble. It's not a left wing conspiracy theory, it's human nature when faced with the police.

Again, neither I (or you) know what really happened. I'm just beyond amused that the word of a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who had already been rejected by a real police department is being taken as the gospel as if he's a highly decorated combat vet just home from a third tour in Afghanistan. He was, and is, a loser whocontributed to this tragic turn of events.

And, yet again, why is it you feel the need to squeeze in your commentary on media coverage, the handling of 911 calls and the price of tea in China into a response to any post of mine? I've told you once, and I guess it bears repeating, I'm not an official representative for the NAACP, the media or Trayvon Martin. If it helps you to paint me, and anyone else who disagrees with you, with your prevalent broad "liberal" brush then I guess whatever helps you sleep at night.

(P.S. Have you ever met some of these mall cops, apartment security guards or overzealous neighborhood watch people? They know the penal code better than a lop of police officers, sadly)

[UNTflyer]

Maybe a black and white pie can bring us together.

[UNTexas]

"Please prove Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. The State of Florida sure couldn't. Whatever we think about him is irrelevant. Additionally, Trayvon wasn't the little saint they presented him as. However, that evidence was suppressed. Two awkward people met in the night and one lived to tell the tale. That is why it's simple. The G couldn't prove the case from the second Trayvon died."

Nobody has eve argued that Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger. I don't doubt that he did. What I do doubt, quite strongly in fact, is that Zimmerman would get the upper hand in a fight with Trayvon Martin REGARDLESS of who started the fight. So, yeah, he'd have shot him either way.

And as to UNT90's repeated claims that forensic evidence backs up Zimmerman's claims that's a little disengenuine. Forensic evidence backs up that Trayvon Martin was beating on him. Nothing more, nothing less. As a police officer (the real kind, not the rejected and now playing neighborhood watch kind) I can tell you definitively that if you try to physically restrain someone because they are "suspicious" they are perfectly capable of getting the upper hand on you. And, yes, you can find yourself on the ground beneath them. But that's why we have cover officers, radios, tactics and the like.

And have I seen COUNTLESS suspects who concoct stories that are convenient to their cause right there on the spot. It's not as impossible as UNT90 would like you to believe. If I had just shot a 17 year old because he got thr upper hand in a fight you can be damn sure that painting him as an aggressive thug would be a pretty easy decision to make...and quickly.

Am I saying George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin? Nope. What I am saying is that only one person knows the truth.

And one other thing, I'm literally pissing myself in laughter at the thought that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system is relevant. I know that my favorite part from Half Baked is when they went out and started beating people up. And I'm sure we all enjoyed the fight scenes in every Cheech and Chong movie. Marijuana is a real riot inciter...oh, wait...

(And, yes, my daughter when she's 17 will be able to kick George Zimmerman's ass. Again, real cop dad)

Come on Emmitt, you know your department, agency, or administration where ever you are as an LEO utilizes a Use of Force policy and if you where on your back taking a beating you could articulate why deadly force would be justified. (Not that I wish you ever are that position, I truly hope not) Private citizens in Florida can do the same, regardless if he is a neighborhood watch guy or just going for a walk. Hence, not guilty in this case.

The detective in this case believed Zimmerman. He testified to that as well. I am sure he has heard countless stories from people too.

You shouldn't pee yourself to much because you sound naive when you say weed doesn't make people violent. It doesn't, however, it's culture does. The pics of Trayvon attempting to show glamour in dope and guns was found on his social media and found inadmissible. The defense as you know couldn't bring it up but could bring up its usage. They did whatever they could for their client. As they should. So was it relevant, damn right. The culture surrounding dope attracts violence. Did it work as part of the defense? Yes. Therefore, not laughable. Chalk it up a W.

I too doubt Zimmerman could have won a fight with him. However, it wouldn't surprise me for a second that he felt like he'd be Rocky until faced with a real fight. All of Trayvon's prior conduct, including fights, was found inadmissible. The kid wasn't scared to bring it and Zimmerman had obviously never fought. The great equalizer prevailed as usual. However, I doubt if Zimmerman landed a knock out blow he pulls the gun and executes Trayvon. Merely my speculation.

I hope your girls or mine never have to fight a grown man. Regardless how we raise them.

[emmitt01]

"You shouldn't pee yourself to much because you sound naive when you say weed doesn't make people violent. It doesn't, however, it's culture does. The pics of Trayvon attempting to show glamour in dope and guns was found on his social media and found inadmissible. The defense as you know couldn't bring it up but could bring up its usage. They did whatever they could for their client. As they should. So was it relevant, damn right. The culture surrounding dope attracts violence. Did it work as part of the defense? Yes. Therefore, not laughable. Chalk it up a W"

I'm not sure how "naive" I am, considering I spent three and a half years as a narcotics detective and have worked around both marijuana users and sellers for my entire career. The violence that surrounds marijuana dealers is almost exclusively tied to the protection of turf (corners, blocks) or the prevention of/commission of robberies to take large quantities of marijuana or money from a trap house. Are you suggesting that George Zimmerman was trying to horde in on Trayvon's dope spot or that he intended to rob him of his stash? Otherwise, the mere presence of marijuana in Martin's system is in no way, shape, or form a precursor for violent behavior. And have you ever taken the time to look at a lot of the youth of America's facebook pages...both black and white. The selfies with their "grip" (money roll) are not exclusive to dope dealers or thugs...quite the contrary. You'd be surprised how many suburban kids are flashing their "knots" on their facebook pages.

But, since we're on the subject of toxicology reports, let's ponder an actually important question. Why wasn't George Zimmerman, the guy who pulled the trigger, given any form of drug/alcohol test? I'm not saying that this has ANYTHING to do with race (sorry Lifer) but that seems a little strange to me. Especially since so much is being made about the role that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system played in the altercation.

From an headline news article...

"Dan Austin is a retired New York police detective and crime scene investigator, and the bulk of his work involved homicides, rape cases, and shootings. Austin says that just because Zimmerman admitted to taking medications doesn't mean that he was intoxicated, because millions of people take prescription medicine everyday.

"If the prosecutor was notified within several hours of the incident, I think the prosecutor or the state themselves should have absolutely made that decision, and told them look while you have him in custody and while we are trying to interpret this whole thing and interpret the law itself ask him if he would be willing to give a blood sample or urine sample, and if not I will get the subpoena or court order to say take him to a local hospital.""

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/05/18/martin-family-why-wasnt-zimmerman-tested

[UNTexas]

"You shouldn't pee yourself to much because you sound naive when you say weed doesn't make people violent. It doesn't, however, it's culture does. The pics of Trayvon attempting to show glamour in dope and guns was found on his social media and found inadmissible. The defense as you know couldn't bring it up but could bring up its usage. They did whatever they could for their client. As they should. So was it relevant, damn right. The culture surrounding dope attracts violence. Did it work as part of the defense? Yes. Therefore, not laughable. Chalk it up a W"

I'm not sure how "naive" I am, considering I spent three and a half years as a narcotics detective and have worked around both marijuana users and sellers for my entire career. The violence that surrounds marijuana dealers is almost exclusively tied to the protection of turf (corners, blocks) or the prevention of/commission of robberies to take large quantities of marijuana or money from a trap house. Are you suggesting that George Zimmerman was trying to horde in on Trayvon's dope spot or that he intended to rob him of his stash? Otherwise, the mere presence of marijuana in Martin's system is in no way, shape, or form a precursor for violent behavior. And have you ever taken the time to look at a lot of the youth of America's facebook pages...both black and white. The selfies with their "grip" (money roll) are not exclusive to dope dealers or thugs...quite the contrary. You'd be surprised how many suburban kids are flashing their "knots" on their facebook pages.

But, since we're on the subject of toxicology reports, let's ponder an actually important question. Why wasn't George Zimmerman, the guy who pulled the trigger, given any form of drug/alcohol test? I'm not saying that this has ANYTHING to do with race (sorry Lifer) but that seems a little strange to me. Especially since so much is being made about the role that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system played in the altercation.

From an headline news article...

"Dan Austin is a retired New York police detective and crime scene investigator, and the bulk of his work involved homicides, rape cases, and shootings. Austin says that just because Zimmerman admitted to taking medications doesn't mean that he was intoxicated, because millions of people take prescription medicine everyday.

"If the prosecutor was notified within several hours of the incident, I think the prosecutor or the state themselves should have absolutely made that decision, and told them look while you have him in custody and while we are trying to interpret this whole thing and interpret the law itself ask him if he would be willing to give a blood sample or urine sample, and if not I will get the subpoena or court order to say take him to a local hospital.""

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/05/18/martin-family-why-wasnt-zimmerman-tested

You aren't the only one with LEO experience and I wasn't asking for a summation of your time investigating dope. You are missing the point. No one said he was protecting loads, stash, or territory. The defense brought up marijuana usage as a character assassination tactic because they couldn't show pics to do so. No one cared about millions of morons posting on Facebook. They cared about the one they were speaking to the jury about. You flash handguns and home grows to 6 women on a jury and it's not going to paint him in a good light. It was found inadmissible. Therefore, they spoke of dope to let them decide his mental state. Do most people view a dude walking in the rain possibly high a good thing? Absolutely not. Defensive tactics which couldn't help the prosecutor. It's very simply trial tactics.

Back to the original point. It was a very simple cut and dry case that should have never gone this far. They barely got Zimmerman indicted. They lost because it was a weak case. It turned political and they were compelled to follow through to their ultimate failure. Forget gun laws, race, prior conduct, or what these guy thought they were. These two guys were just a bad duo to meet on a rainy night.

(I won't armchair QB the fellas who ran the investigation either.)

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNTexas

[RAGEMASTER5000]

The amount of THC in his system wouldn't get a Mormon high.

[UNT90]

"You shouldn't pee yourself to much because you sound naive when you say weed doesn't make people violent. It doesn't, however, it's culture does. The pics of Trayvon attempting to show glamour in dope and guns was found on his social media and found inadmissible. The defense as you know couldn't bring it up but could bring up its usage. They did whatever they could for their client. As they should. So was it relevant, damn right. The culture surrounding dope attracts violence. Did it work as part of the defense? Yes. Therefore, not laughable. Chalk it up a W"

I'm not sure how "naive" I am, considering I spent three and a half years as a narcotics detective and have worked around both marijuana users and sellers for my entire career. The violence that surrounds marijuana dealers is almost exclusively tied to the protection of turf (corners, blocks) or the prevention of/commission of robberies to take large quantities of marijuana or money from a trap house. Are you suggesting that George Zimmerman was trying to horde in on Trayvon's dope spot or that he intended to rob him of his stash? Otherwise, the mere presence of marijuana in Martin's system is in no way, shape, or form a precursor for violent behavior. And have you ever taken the time to look at a lot of the youth of America's facebook pages...both black and white. The selfies with their "grip" (money roll) are not exclusive to dope dealers or thugs...quite the contrary. You'd be surprised how many suburban kids are flashing their "knots" on their facebook pages.

But, since we're on the subject of toxicology reports, let's ponder an actually important question. Why wasn't George Zimmerman, the guy who pulled the trigger, given any form of drug/alcohol test? I'm not saying that this has ANYTHING to do with race (sorry Lifer) but that seems a little strange to me. Especially since so much is being made about the role that marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system played in the altercation.

From an headline news article...

"Dan Austin is a retired New York police detective and crime scene investigator, and the bulk of his work involved homicides, rape cases, and shootings. Austin says that just because Zimmerman admitted to taking medications doesn't mean that he was intoxicated, because millions of people take prescription medicine everyday.

"If the prosecutor was notified within several hours of the incident, I think the prosecutor or the state themselves should have absolutely made that decision, and told them look while you have him in custody and while we are trying to interpret this whole thing and interpret the law itself ask him if he would be willing to give a blood sample or urine sample, and if not I will get the subpoena or court order to say take him to a local hospital.""

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/05/18/martin-family-why-wasnt-zimmerman-tested

Jeez.. Do you give an intoxicaton test to everyone you pull over? How do you know if they are on pills are not? Maybe personal observation?

If there was ANY sign that Zimmerman was intoxicated that night, don't you think the police would have gotten a warrant for his blood?

Could it be, just possibly, that there was absolutely no signs that he was intoxicated? perhaps?

How far are you willing to reach? It doesn't matter either way, except to establish character. And that's only in the court of public opinion because the judge properly didn't allow the testimony of Martin's drug use into evidence.

So just to re-cap (not aimed at you, Emmitt), we have gone from the original thread of Zimmerman being a bloodthirsty racist who tracked down Martin intentionally with the single thought in mind to execute a black man (look at the original thread) to, well, no one knows what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, so I'm going to believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor and managed to lie perfectly to fit the forensic evidence.

Quite a change for people who still want someone to be guilty to justify their emotion, don't you think?

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90

[UNTflyer]

You shouldn't pee yourself to much because you sound naive when you say weed doesn't make people violent. It doesn't, however, it's culture does. The pics of Trayvon attempting to show glamour in dope and guns was found on his social media and found inadmissible. The defense as you know couldn't bring it up but could bring up its usage. They did whatever they could for their client. As they should. So was it relevant, damn right. The culture surrounding dope attracts violence. Did it work as part of the defense? Yes. Therefore, not laughable. Chalk it up a W.

I too doubt Zimmerman could have won a fight with him. However, it wouldn't surprise me for a second that he felt like he'd be Rocky until faced with a real fight. All of Trayvon's prior conduct, including fights, was found inadmissible. The kid wasn't scared to bring it and Zimmerman had obviously never fought. The great equalizer prevailed as usual. However, I doubt if Zimmerman landed a knock out blow he pulls the gun and executes Trayvon. Merely my speculation.

I hope your girls or mine never have to fight a grown man. Regardless how we raise them.

OK, I didn't really want to get into this but I have to call BS on your marijuana claim (it's called "weed" in the urban areas of the country).

You call Emmitt naive when he says "weed" doesn't make people violent, but "it's culture does." Then you don't explain your point.

"Weed" is probably the mildest of illegal drugs. It is less harmful than alcohol. I admit... I used to smoke a lot of "weed" when I was a younger man, and I hung out with people who smoked a lot of "weed." I have never EVER witnessed a person get violent while high on "weed." The worst behavior I have ever seen when someone was high on "weed" was a vicious assault on a chocolate cake. It never stood a chance.

[UNTFan23]

Jeez.. Do you give an intoxicaton test to everyone you pull over? How do you know if they are on pills are not? Maybe personal observation?

If there was ANY sign that Zimmerman was intoxicated that night, don't you think the police would have gotten a warrant for his blood?

Could it be, just possibly, that there was absolutely no signs that he was intoxicated? perhaps?

How far are you willing to reach? It doesn't matter either way, except to establish character. And that's only in the court of public opinion because the judge properly didn't allow the testimony of Martin's drug use into evidence.

So just to re-cap (not aimed at you, Emmitt), we have gone from the original thread of Zimmerman being a bloodthirsty racist who tracked down Martin intentionally with the single thought in mind to execute a black man (look at the original thread) to, well, no one knows what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, so I'm going to believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor and managed to lie perfectly to fit the forensic evidence.

Quite a change for people who still want someone to be guilty to justify their emotion, don't you think?

Imagine how much fun this might be if the DoJ decides to file federal charges against him. Everyone will get to relive the ordeal again!!!

/sarcastic cheer

[FirefightnRick]

Imagine how much fun this might be if the DoJ decides to file federal charges against him. Everyone will get to relive the ordeal again!!!

/sarcastic cheer

You mean, file charges against themselves basically since last year the FBI interviewed 36 separate groups to find something on Zimmerman's character and came away with nothing.

Yes, it's going to be interesting.

Rick

Edited July 17, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[THOR]

like the ruling...justice was served...

don't like it...justice wasn't served...

sadly, this same argument would be going on if the verdict was reversed...

[FirefightnRick]

"Fired Employee To File Suit Against Zimmerman Prosecutor"

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96F1EL20130716?irpc=932

Ben Kruidbos, Corey's former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin's cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws.

"We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida's Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court," said Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days.....

.....Trial law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure.

Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found photos on Martin's phone that included pictures of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol...

Rick