1. This tactic of yours is tiresome. Ever slight inconsistency is not a lie. Can you cite the testimony where GZ describes TM straddling him? I'd like to read it. You are nearly describing TM sitting on his face... and I doubt that is what happened. 2. Possible only with huge boobs or a body air conditioner. You are trying to claim that your shirt RIGHT NOW when you stand up is 2-4 inches from your chest-- where Trayvon was shot? Again, impossible without the aforementioned aids.
1. You can watch this youtube from the trial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpsq6ewWh_A Here's something you can read about it. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/11/george-zimmerman-trial-more-charges-possible Here's another http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/closing_arguments_ongoing_in_g.html 2. My t-shirt I'm wearing right now will not be 4 inches from my body. It is 2 inches from it though. My sweatshirt will be 4 inches from body.
And this matters how? This is part of what I bring up the police. They did a very poor job responding to the situation. A competent PD would have gathered a lot more evidence and investigated much more thoroughly, probably leading most DAs to press charges. I've not mentioned race once in this entire discussion. I don't refer to those involved by name, since they carry racial connotation. The legality of it isn't the issue. It's whether or not following someone in the dark would give them reasonable cause to fear for their safety, and in the case of the boy, it would. Yes, it does. And the word you're looking for is "moot". It does in the sense that if it can be proven that the man has an unfavorable disposition towards a certain race, that he may have been more prone to violence in such a situation. Once again, the legality of it isn't the point. The only legal matter at stake here is murder/manslaughter. Over the course of a trial, a ton of things are brought up for/against both the defendant and plaintiff that are not illegal but influence the jury's opinion. Yes, it absolutely does. Of course, we will never know what took place, because dead men tell no tales, but threatening someone changes the dynamic of "assault" to "self defense". In fact, that is what this entire case is about, "stand your ground". You can't say that with certainty because if the boy was alive, we would have two sides of the story to hear, and the man could very well be the one facing the assault charges, or the boy could have a stout case for self-defense. Either way, the boy was killed due to the irresponsible actions of someone else (stalking) which led to the confrontation that resulted in his death. Pretty much the definition of manslaughter.
He was returning home from the grocery store. No one disputes that. On the way to his house he saw Martin standing in the rain near houses in the community.
Why does that matter? The dispatcher isn't the issue. THe issue is the police told GZ NOT TO FOLLOW ANYONE as part of his role as a neighborhood watchman. That was part of his training. He disregarded it and acted outside the confines of what he was suppose to do.
This case was a sad and dishonest display by the prosecution. The prosecution basically admits that they have no case when during their closing statements they are guiding jurors towards emotional points and steering people away from the fact that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was trying to introduce the concept of doubt into the jurors heads in a very dishonest attempt to sway them away from judging this case on the merits. These efforts were playing on the basest emotions of women, and likely targeted towards the minority woman. The race hustlers and the Obama Administration pushed this case in order to divide Florida and energize minority voters. The case never should have been brought, and wasn't brought until pressure was applied and a special prosecutor got involved. This issue, along with other highly emotional wedge issues, such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration, are being shamelessly pushed by this corrupt Presidential administration and the media, their willing helper, to divide America and maintain a majority. This is not good for America.
Some of the inconsistencies are definitely slight or trivial, but some are MAJOR and telling. If the jury was asked right now to deliberate, for example, on whether Zimmerman followed Trayvon I'm pretty sure the verdict would be not guilty as Zimmerman's claims about "needing an address" have been demonstrated as being more or less ridiculous. Ditto for Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon reached for a gun. Not supported by forensics and more or less implausible based on Zimmerman's own words as to how the fight progressed. Ditto for Zimmerman's claims about how many times he was punched or had his head allegedly based into the concrete. No one on the jury or dare I say, even in this thread, truly believes he was hit 20-30 times. Had he done so, not a chance he walks away without a concussion and with 2 small lacerations that didn't require stitches. It's clear Trayvon beat up Zimmerman and more or less assaulted him, but it's equally clear Zimmerman is exaggerating the extent of it. And that is most certainly NOT a slight inconsistency. This is highly correlated with the validity of his claim he was in fear for his life. Such a fear is much more valid and reasonable if you are hit 20-30 times as opposed to 1-3. Again, if the jury solely deliberated on whether Zimmerman was hit 20 plus times, can you honestly say they'd say Yes? I think you have to realize it's not only the inconsistencies between his own statements that are relevant here but the inconsistencies between his statements and the evidence. No way are all of them slight.
that's because the person who could prove that GZ is a liar is dead. So we're only left to believe the lies of a person who shot down a kid in cold blood. If the cops did their jobs properly on the night TM was murdered, it wouldn't have been left to Obama and Al Sharpton to claim racism and make a big fuss of why GZ wasn't jailed for what he did. At the least, GZ needed to be booked, but since his dad was a high profile judge (which everyone is forgetting), they had connections and knew the ins and outs of laws and how to avoid being arrested/jailed. Think about it, if it was a black male who followed a white kid on a sunday night and then shot him down and claimed self defense, not one person in this world would believe him. He would be jailed and the key would be thrown out. Also the fact that the jury couldn't reach a verdict after 4 hours of deliberation just shows that this isn't as easy as a decision to make. The problem is that there is not enough evidence. Not because everyone believes that GZ is not at fault. Unfortunately, no one in the gated community had the balls to stop a fight. Shows a lot about the neighbourhood. No wonder they were getting robbed left and right. Too much of a p***y to fight back, and they had an even more p***y to be their neighbourhood captain. He couldn't even pass an MMA class, and people thought they are being protected by this fat ****.
Out of curiosity, there are hundreds of murders everyday in the US. Why do you all care so much about this one? Seriously, it baffles me.
Or maybe it's because people go to jail for having small amount of weed and other substances on them, while killers (pretending to be cops) roam free in our neighbourhoods.
This is a pretty unique case that is based on a really dubious law. The racial component played a part in pushing it towards the forefront (the fact that this situation was handled to poorly that a trial was almost skipped entirely just magnified this), but in a country struggling with gun violence, it's a very compelling case.
To me its all pretty clear. GZ was losing a fight he instigated. He pulled his gun and killed him. The fact that he was not beat up a lot worse indicates to me it was not self defense...just losing a fight.
I don't see how anybody can state that GZ instigated a fight when there were no witnesses stating so. If you feel that following someone is instigating a fight then that should give every hollywood actor the right to fight paparazzi. The real question here is do you believe that the stand your ground law should still be allowed going forward or should be changed in some way.
