Trayvon Martin Case Updates: 2 Judges Recuse, "graphic pictures" of Zimmerman's Injuries, Bond set at $150K (attorney, CNN)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gee, when I tried to go back to the video, it has been removed from the gz web site because they want to save bandwidth. Fancy that. Maybe they don't want that video easily available for the public after all. They basically tell people to make a records request for it.
I do have an okay memory for verbatim testimony and I remember that he said he "felt" like Martin was reaching for his gun, he "believed" Martin saw his gun when he (Zimmerman) tried to slip out from under Martin, and then he said he "thought" Martin had seen the gun. He never made an unequivocal statement that he felt (as in physically felt) Martin reaching for his gun, he never said he knew Martin had seen the gun, or words to that effect. He qualified each statement about whether or not Martin saw his gun, and the statement about he "felt" Martin going for his gun. He used body language as well to demonstrate while describing this to the police in the video. Guess you had to watch and listen.
Btw, "most likely" I did watch/listen to the ENTIRE video, from start to finish. I used the link you posted! Seems like the whole thing was approximately 30 minutes, more or less, long.
With video available for people to check, why would you bother to misrepresent what gz said--- 'he reached for it, I felt his arm going down by my side.'
No equivocation. Consistent with what he told cops the night of the shooting.
People can continue with cutesy quips about gz needing 3 hands to do what he says he did. They become repetitive, but much does on a message board. The notion that gz couldn't yell or reach for his gun because At Different Points in the struggle tm held him down or covered his mouth is pretty ridiculous.
With video available for people to check, why would you bother to misrepresent what gz said--- 'he reached for it, I felt his arm going down by my side.'
No equivocation. Consistent with what he told cops the night of the shooting.
People can continue with cutesy quips about gz needing 3 hands to do what he says he did. They become repetitive, but much does on a message board. The notion that gz couldn't yell or reach for his gun because At Different Points in the struggle tm held him down or covered his mouth is pretty ridiculous.
Then post an active link to the re-enactment video. That's not what I remember and when I searched for it today, it was not available. Link please.
What makes you think that your calling other people's perceptions "cutesy quips" is any less offensive than arrogant, sarcastic "quips" and accusations of intentional attempts to mislead? I disagree with your assessment of the situation and find it pretty heavy on assumptions. Your "fact" that Zimmerman could reach for his gun at different points in the struggle actually supports the "notion" that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life if he had that level of control and could control that gun.
Like supporting locking up innocent people is a moral position.
Or like letting murderers get off and calling a dead teeanager a thug and making things up about him is taking the moral high road.
FYI - Innocent people don't exit their vehicle with loaded guns to follow people that they refer to as *******s who always gets away, but know nothing about. Innocent people do not lie or watch their wife lie in a courtroom while they sit and say nothing. Innocent people do not assault cops or hit their girfriends. GZ is not an innocent person it that is who you were referring to.
Like supporting locking up innocent people is a moral position.
Oh, Give me a break. You can complain if Zimmerman is acquitted and then the State continues to "lock him up." You sound like you might have law enforcement background, so certainly you would know that when a person is charged with a crime by the State, that person has to go to jail unless they can post bail. Zimmerman already had that chance and he blew it by lying to the Court. He also let his wife take part of that fall with him! Not impressive. I support locking up people who are charged with a crime by the State and who prove that they cannot be trusted to be out on bail.
Then post an active link to the re-enactment video. That's not what I remember and when I searched for it today, it was not available. Link please.
What makes you think that "cutesy quips" are any more offensive than arrogant, sarcastic "quips" an accusations of intentional attempt to mislead? I disagree with your assessment of the situation and find it pretty heavy on assumptions. Your "fact" that Zimmerman could reach for his gun at different points in the struggle actually supports the "notion" that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life if he had that level of control.
The reenactment video is widely available; go find one. If it's not important enough and you continue to misrepresent, intentionally or not, what gz said, I'll say so.
You're being particularly thick today. I've seen posters question how gz could yell for help and reach for his gun if tm was pinning gz's arms to the ground, covering his nose and mouth, punching him, and banging his head on the ground. The answer is so self-evident that I'm embarassed for those who don't know. He could yell for help when his mouth wasn't cocered and reach his gun when he wasn't pinned down. He didn't need 2 moths or 3 arms.
The reenactment video is widely available; go find one. If it's not important enough and you continue to misrepresent, intentionally or not, what gz said, I'll say so.
You're being particularly thick today. I've seen posters question how gz could yell for help and reach for his gun if tm was pinning gz's arms to the ground, covering his nose and mouth, punching him, and banging his head on the ground. The answer is so self-evident that I'm embarassed for those who don't know. He could yell for help when his mouth wasn't cocered and reach his gun when he wasn't pinned down. He didn't need 2 moths or 3 arms.
So you can't back up your assertions. Okay. Got it.
You'll stick with that til heck freezes over because the bill's authors and Bush said so. Still no court cases or Legal support for the unsupportable idea that following someone means you can't use SYG or even the plain old self defense law.
So former Gov Bush and others who authored the SYG bill in Florida and Zimmerman's own attorney said it's not a SYG case, but you insist it is. Okay. You and one of your buddies here said I keep repeating things, but it's probably because you don't seem to get it.
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/]Author of "stand your ground" law: George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for killing Trayvon Martin - Crimesider - CBS News[/url]
"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper
[url=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/29/zimmermannofzinger-fix-now-a-fact/]Breaking – Jeb Bush Backs Zimmerman Arrest in Killing | Veterans Today[/url]
"Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and “stealth” Republican presidential front-runner is a supporter of the “Stand Your Ground” law, but yesterday admitted that he did not know why an arrest was not made in the case and further, that the broad-spanning law did not seem to cover George Zimmerman."
"This law does not apply to this particular circumstance… Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back."
Some are saying the 911 call will be his best defense. After all, he did call the police. However, he also was in his car when he said "He's running" and then chased after him. I'm not saying a jury will find Zimmerman not guilty, but only if the prosecution has no evidence to prove he's lying. Still, this is not a SGY case, as I previously wrote. "Self-Defense" is not the same as "Stand-Your-Ground." Martin would be the one standing his ground, since he was the person being followed. Zimmerman wasn't even close to his home. He didn't even know the name of the street he was on when asked.
Now we learn in the interview that Trayvon Martin was circling his car. Sounds pretty threatening to me! So why would anyone in his right mind who is in his car and on the phone with 911 leave the safety of that car in pursuit of a person who was acting suspiciously with "his hand in his waistband?" It only makes sense if Zimmerman was ready to use his gun. No one asked Zimmerman to go hunting for Martin. It was his choice. It's not the same as if I were in my home and someone broke into it.
I also find it difficult to believe that a State Attorney would charge someone with 2nd degree murder without any evidence to back her up, even if she expects him to plead to a lesser charge. He keeps changing his story and he lied at the bond hearing. His credibility is too questionable for a judge to grant him immunity. If you still believe he's telling the truth after he concocted the story about Martin cursing at him after being shot in the chest with a hollow point bullet from inches away, then I guess he would love you to be on the jury. All I heard were screams, a gunshot and then silence.
So former Gov Bush and others who authored the SYG bill in Florida and Zimmerman's own attorney said it's not a SYG case, but you insist it is. Okay. You and one of your buddies here said I keep repeating things, but it's probably because you don't seem to get it.
"Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and “stealth” Republican presidential front-runner is a supporter of the “Stand Your Ground” law, but yesterday admitted that he did not know why an arrest was not made in the case and further, that the broad-spanning law did not seem to cover George Zimmerman."
"This law does not apply to this particular circumstance… Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back."
Some are saying the 911 call will be his best defense. After all, he did call the police. However, he also was in his car when he said "He's running" and then chased after him. I'm not saying a jury will find Zimmerman not guilty, but only if the prosecution has no evidence to prove he's lying. Still, this is not a SGY case, as I previously wrote. "Self-Defense" is not the same as "Stand-Your-Ground." Martin would be the one standing his ground, since he was the person being followed. Zimmerman wasn't even close to his home. He didn't even know the name of the street he was on when asked.
Now we learn in the interview that Trayvon Martin was circling his car. Sounds pretty threatening to me! So why would anyone in his right mind who is in his car and on the phone with 911 leave the safety of that car in pursuit of a person who was acting suspiciously with "his hand in his waistband?" It only makes sense if Zimmerman was ready to use his gun. No one asked Zimmerman to go hunting for Martin. It was his choice. It's not the same as if I were in my home and someone broke into it.
I also find it difficult to believe that a State Attorney would charge someone with 2nd degree murder without any evidence to back her up, even if she expects him to plead to a lesser charge. He keeps changing his story and he lied at the bond hearing. His credibility is too questionable for a judge to grant him immunity. If you still believe he's telling the truth after he concocted the story about Martin cursing at him after being shot in the chest with a hollow point bullet from inches away, then I guess he would love you to be on the jury. All I heard were screams, a gunshot and then silence.
Just as I said --- Still no court cases or Legal support for the unsupportable idea that following someone means you can't use SYG or even the plain old self defense law.
GZ's credibility is at question, no doubt.
I don't know if tm could have said anything after he was shot. Sounds fishy to me, but it's the type of issue I'll have to hear from people like forensic pathologists to have a definite opinion.
I don't find it difficult to believe a state attorney would charge someone with murder without enough evidence to prove it bard.
I know this puts me on the gz side, but I do believe he's the one yelling for help. In the same report Serino wrote that the death was 'ultimately avoidable,' he also wrote that gz did the yelling. If he's since changed his mind, maybe I will too down the road.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can complain if Zimmerman is acquitted and then the State continues to "lock him up." You sound like you might have law enforcement background, so certainly you would know that when a person is charged with a crime by the State, that person has to go to jail unless they can post bail. Zimmerman already had that chance and he blew it by lying to the Court. He also let his wife take part of that fall with him! Not impressive. I support locking up people who are charged with a crime by the State and who prove that they cannot be trusted to be out on bail.