New York Firearms Forum banner
21 - 40 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
It all comes down to psychology. I believe Zimmerman got out of that truck because he was feeling brave and wanted to try and see where Martin ran to. Martin saw him from the dark and waited for him to get off the phone. He then got in his face and sized him up asking "why are you following me". At this point, Zimmerman still believed this guy was a burglar and rather than saying "I am neighborhood watch, just wondering what you are doing around here" he chose to play dumb hoping to stall him until the cops showed up. After that, it is impossible to know what exactly happened. Both scenarios are somewhat illogical: Why would Martin start pummeling him unprovoked, and why would Zimmerman start a fight with a taller/fitter "Burglar". The answer to that 2 or 3 seconds which began the physical confrontation will never be known for sure.
 

·
Formerly SRV1
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Maybe I have had too many lying scumbags in my office that I just can't give him credibility without corroboration when he lies about key facts. I really am still on the fence about how the fight started. See why you don't want lawyers on the jury!
I believe the fight got started when Zimmerman confronted him. He didn't like a "white boy" following him and asking him questions. From what I have read, their was no defensive marks on Travon's body. I do not think George threw any punches. The teen did it because he was racist and so is his parents. They teach kids to be racist. His father has some arrest records as well in his career. I do not know if that is true but it would not surprise me. You know what they say, the apple does not fall too far from the tree. The kids was the aggressor by far no doubt about it. Just look at his history, smoking weed, illegal gun, getting into fights and so on. I can follow someone but that does not give them the right to beat the hell out of me if I'm not threatening them. If the kid was scared, why did he stick around? Scared enough to beat someone up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,682 Posts
Maybe I have had too many lying scumbags in my office that I just can't give him credibility without corroboration when he lies about key facts. I really am still on the fence about how the fight started. See why you don't want lawyers on the jury!
I was going to suggest that idea the other night during our discussion. Ya know, profiling defendants. ;)

I can see that happening. Dealing with scum-buckets all day long, you could get jaundiced just like some cops.

On the flip side, I heard a radio interview with a local well respected attorney where he said that it is normal for there to be inconsistencies in a persons story. He is suspicious when a story is too perfect, as it sounds rehearsed.

Our memories are generally not perfect, and as someone reflects back on what happened, stories can change as they realize it only seemed to happen a certain way at the time because they failed to put two and two together right away. Zimmerman had over a year to reflect back on what happened, and as he lived it over and over in his mind, his perception of those events changed. Make sense?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,391 Posts
I don't believe he grabbed for the gun honestly.
I have a problem with this too. TM may or may not have, we will never know The reason I beleve it is questionable is because its almost too perfect.

GZ said TM was banging his head into the sidewalk, ( thats grounds for self defense right there) GZ said TM was covering his mouth and nose,( thats grounds for self defense right there) GZ said TM went for gun( thats grounds for self defense right there)GZ said TM said he was going to kill him ( or something close to that) which shows his state of mind .

I believe that some of this is true, but not all of it .It sounds like GZ was trying to embellish his story . Because anyone of those things was grounds for self defense and He said TM did all three . HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM doesnt pass the smell test with me.

If I was the prosecutor, I would have stated that GZ did not draw and fire his weapon when his head was banged into the sidewalk, GZ did not draw and fire his weapon when TM was smothering him . Why not? Why didnt he fire his weapon to protect himself? Because GZ was not in fear for his life. He only drew his weapon when TM had his hands near or on it . How convient is that?

Dont get me wrong, I belive GZ had every right to use his weapon for any of those reasons . I believe he was justifed in shooting. I belive the jury was correct.

I also belive GZ may have enhanced his story a bit , but not to the extent that he actually murdered TM in cold blood because he was a raceist. I dont buy that for a minute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I was going to suggest that idea the other night during our discussion. Ya know, profiling defendants. ;)

I can see that happening. Dealing with scum-buckets all day long, you could get jaundiced just like some cops.

On the flip side, I heard a radio interview with a local well respected attorney where he said that it is normal for there to be inconsistencies in a persons story. He is suspicious when a story is too perfect, as it sounds rehearsed.

Our memories are generally not perfect, and as someone reflects back on what happened, stories can change as they realize it only seemed to happen a certain way at the time because they failed to put two and two together right away. Zimmerman had over a year to reflect back on what happened, and as he lived it over and over in his mind, his perception of those events changed. Make sense?
Inconsistencies, yes. All people who give more than one statement about the same event will give some inconsistent statements. It is what is inconsistent that matters. When it is a key fact, it is highly dubious. Remember, it is my job to catch liars on the stand. You get quite good at it. His story is too perfect and he did lie. That much is certain. The rest is conjecture on all our parts. He probably was getting his butt kicked and was scared. Do I believe he feared for his life? I am just not sure. Not really my call to make. For that and many other reasons, that is why I would vote to acquit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I saw something on Fox earlier and decided to record it for later. I then for some reason looked up CNN and decided to record A-Cooper. I can't believe I have this recorded. Listening to it right now. Cooper is like astonished that the juror is thinking the way she is thinking. He is on the left of the TV set, because he is in fact, leftist. What commonality. Man I am so glad these women got this right.
Originally three were not guilty, two for manslaughter, one for 2nd D murder (unbelievable!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Shooter, maybe you mentioned it in another thread but which parts did you catch him lying about? As someone who likes arguing, I've thoroughly been enjoying this case. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Shooter, maybe you mentioned it in another thread but which parts did you catch him lying about? As someone who likes arguing, I've thoroughly been enjoying this case. :)
According to the professor who taught the criminal law and self defense statutes to the class GZ was in, he was specifically taught abut the Stand Your Ground Law. He denied this on Hannity. He also was told to disengage pursuit and stated he complied, yet he continued to follow him. Those are two definite lies. That makes me question anything else he says. His credibility is suspect. But it does not mean necessarily that his story is not mostly true. The jury bought it, of course it was an all white, and one Hispanic jury. You do view the world through your own prism, so as much as I hate to say it, race does matter and does impact virtually every single criminal case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
It all comes down to psychology. I believe Zimmerman got out of that truck because he was feeling brave and wanted to try and see where Martin ran to. Martin saw him from the dark and waited for him to get off the phone. He then got in his face and sized him up asking "why are you following me". At this point, Zimmerman still believed this guy was a burglar and rather than saying "I am neighborhood watch, just wondering what you are doing around here" he chose to play dumb hoping to stall him until the cops showed up. After that, it is impossible to know what exactly happened. Both scenarios are somewhat illogical: Why would Martin start pummeling him unprovoked, and why would Zimmerman start a fight with a taller/fitter "Burglar". The answer to that 2 or 3 seconds which began the physical confrontation will never be known for sure.
PURE speculation. There is zero evidence of any of this.

I believe the fight got started when Zimmerman confronted him. He didn't like a "white boy" following him and asking him questions. From what I have read, their was no defensive marks on Travon's body. I do not think George threw any punches. The teen did it because he was racist and so is his parents. They teach kids to be racist. His father has some arrest records as well in his career. I do not know if that is true but it would not surprise me. You know what they say, the apple does not fall too far from the tree. The kids was the aggressor by far no doubt about it. Just look at his history, smoking weed, illegal gun, getting into fights and so on. I can follow someone but that does not give them the right to beat the hell out of me if I'm not threatening them. If the kid was scared, why did he stick around? Scared enough to beat someone up?
Another one - please show where Zimmerman confronted him. There is not a single piece of evidence which supports this theory. Not a single witness, nothing.

I have a problem with this too. TM may or may not have, we will never know The reason I beleve it is questionable is because its almost too perfect.

GZ said TM was banging his head into the sidewalk, ( thats grounds for self defense right there) GZ said TM was covering his mouth and nose,( thats grounds for self defense right there) GZ said TM went for gun( thats grounds for self defense right there)GZ said TM said he was going to kill him ( or something close to that) which shows his state of mind .

I believe that some of this is true, but not all of it .It sounds like GZ was trying to embellish his story . Because anyone of those things was grounds for self defense and He said TM did all three . HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM doesnt pass the smell test with me.

If I was the prosecutor, I would have stated that GZ did not draw and fire his weapon when his head was banged into the sidewalk, GZ did not draw and fire his weapon when TM was smothering him . Why not? Why didnt he fire his weapon to protect himself? Because GZ was not in fear for his life. He only drew his weapon when TM had his hands near or on it . How convient is that?

Dont get me wrong, I belive GZ had every right to use his weapon for any of those reasons . I believe he was justifed in shooting. I belive the jury was correct.

I also belive GZ may have enhanced his story a bit , but not to the extent that he actually murdered TM in cold blood because he was a raceist. I dont buy that for a minute.
My *theory* (and yes it too is speculation) is that he couldn't reach for his handgun at those particular times. I think the prosecution is right that TM was blocking GZ's access to the handgun - however the moment he was able to reach for it, he did. You also have to remember that all of the above happened in what - 30-40seconds?? It takes us longer to comment here than the fight lasted. It wasn't as if this played out over 30min or so and GZ had time to really think.

Is his story 100% accurate? I don't believe so. But I also don't believe he is purposely embellishing it and that he truly believes TM was reaching for his handgun. Remember, two people can look at a situation and end up with three different stories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Let's not forget you walk into court INNOCENT - The Prosecution has to PROVE you guilty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
After listening to Ms. Jeantel interviewed last night, I also believe she is holding back some things Trayvon may have said to her on that call. I bet in a few years she comes out with a full account of what was said and may include statments to the effect that Trayvon was going to "F" him up or something. watching her testimony and this interview, there was definitely more said on that call than she is comfortable talking about...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
My personal arm chair opinion is the GZ had the right to defend himself, however in this great state he would be done for. Florida laws are more lenient. I think he is a cop wannabe and he should have stayed at his vehicle. With that being said, you can very easily kill someone by bouncing thier head off concrete with little blood loss. The trauma is to the brain, so all the media dorks and the pathologist saying his wounds could have been minor are idiots. So in GZ shoes, taking away the part where he should have stayed and not put his life in danger, I believe he had the right to use deadly force in that situation, and that 17 year old boy was a young man. My son is 15, over 6ft tall, nice hockey stash and built like a truck so the whole he is a little boy thing doesn't work for me. Off soapbox and exit right. TY!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,835 Posts
Wannabe Cop has been a general theory that the prosecution was trying to present to the jury and that the media has been presenting to the public. I don't buy that so much. The single event that would mostly dispel that theory is the GZ was offered a position with a program called Citizens on Patrol. He would get a car with lights and a uniform. He declined. That was about as close to being a real cop as it was going to get. If he was such a wannabe, why wouldn't he have jumped at that chance?

Stories change over time. If you want to compare the story today with that of which was told just a few hours after a severe beating and having to shoot another man, they're going to have inconsistencies. There are no major differences in the story then and now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
The wannabe cop story is believable because of how GZ had acted in the past. It was documented. Numerous frivolous emergency and non-emergency calls, he was operating outside the scope of a typical neighborhood watchman (the juror in last night's interview supported this fact as well), and taking the law into his own hands. GZ applied to become a cop and was denied for a number of reasons related to his past. He also had priors, one for a domestic assault situation and another for resisting arrest. Charges were dropped in both cases, but his father was a judge and I have little doubt some strings were pulled and he was given a "get out of jail free" pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
The wannabe cop story is believable because of how GZ had acted in the past. It was documented. Numerous frivolous emergency and non-emergency calls, he was operating outside the scope of a typical neighborhood watchman (the jury in last night's interview supported this also), and taking the law into his own hands. GZ applied to become a cop and was denied for a number of reasons related to his past. He also had priors, one for a domestic assault situation and another for resisting arrest. Charges were dropped in both cases, but his father was a judge and I have little doubt some strings were pulled and he was given a "get out of jail free" pass.
What you call frivolous others call looking out for the neighborhood. I feel sorry for your neighbors, hopefully one of them has a greater concern for your well-being than you have for theirs.The resisting arrest was BS, the undercover officers didn't announce who they were and he was sticking up for a friend.There was no domestic assault - there were mutual OOPs issued between him and his ex-fiancée after she caught him on a dating website.Keep up the misinformation and you may just get offered a job at MSNBC....honestly you're disappointing me, you're better than this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Wannabe Cop has been a general theory that the prosecution was trying to present to the jury and that the media has been presenting to the public. I don't buy that so much. The single event that would mostly dispel that theory is the GZ was offered a position with a program called Citizens on Patrol. He would get a car with lights and a uniform. He declined. That was about as close to being a real cop as it was going to get. If he was such a wannabe, why wouldn't he have jumped at that chance?
BINGO.Or you could just go off of the sworn testimony of his professors who testified that he wanted to be an attorney and/or prosecutor.But I'm sure Chris won't let those facts get in the way of his theory that GZ is a monster....at least he's being consistent in not providing any facts.
 
21 - 40 of 67 Posts
Top