• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

Ball State Deac said:
Not sure I understand the effectiveness of this (didn't see it). Is the defense saying that TM should have had time to get away from Zimmerman? Isn't that an acknowledgement that Zimmerman was confronting TM?
Click to expand...

Just watched this on HLN (they show everything with pauses for commercial breaks so they are running a bit behind what is happening live). I think the defense was trying to show that the state has not presented any evidence about what Martin was doing in the four minutes between when Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin he was running, and when Martin's phone call with Rachel ended. Implication is that Martin was not going home, but rather came back to confront Zimmerman. Had more than enough time to go home during those four minutes.
 
Last edited:
So I've read some (not all) of this thread and figured I'd give a brief weigh-in. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, or legal expert. I am a coming at this as a Christian ethicist.

That being said- Zimmerman likely can't be found guilty of a crime under the law, we simply don't know enough about the situation beyond the shadow of a doubt. But he is certainly guilty of instigating and escalating the situation, he certainly pulled the trigger, and is guilty (not in a court of law sense) of murdering an innocent person. He likely had/has racist tendencies, acted on them, against orders from the police, started a fight that didn't need to happen; Martin likewise had probably been racially profiled before (he's a black teen in America) and that likely caused some racist reactions in his own mind, along with an aggressive demeanor. So Martin defends himself, and starts to kick Zimmerman's out of shape butt. Zimmerman, in what perhaps he thought may have been self-defense but perhaps was just a response without any thought, pulls the trigger and the rest is history.

Zimmerman's crime wasn't as much pulling the trigger (though it is abhorrent), but it was starting this whole incident. The gunshot was the unfortunate ending to a story that never should have begun.
 
RJKarl said:
There are two problems with the silence. Primarily, if Trayvon ran, it would be irrational not to think that a guy who had already profiled as a criminal wouldn't run after. Especially a guy with a gun and who had disobeyed the 911 operator about getting of his car to follow the person. Secondly. he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He had no reason to run.

If the prosecutor wasn't a totally incompetent boob, he could turn that tactic around to implicate Zimmerman. I don't expect he will, but it is a hanging curve.
Click to expand...

Jeantel testified that Trayvon said he was running.

This is what O'Mara followed it up with. Really trying to establish doubt.

"Did they show you, tell you, explain to you, give you any insight whatsoever, what Trayvon Martin was doing four minutes before that fight started at the ‘T’ intersection? Do you have a doubt as to what happened and what Trayvon Martin was doing and what he must have been thinking for four minutes?"

"Four minutes -- that felt like a long time to you, that we sat here and did nothing for four minutes? You get to think what Trayvon Martin was doing. Four minutes to do what? To walk home? Run home? The four minute mile was broken when I was like, 12… I do know you can run a mile in about four minutes if you’re in decent shape."
 
RevDeac06 said:
So I've read some (not all) of this thread and figured I'd give a brief weigh-in. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, or legal expert. I am a coming at this as a Christian ethicist.

That being said- Zimmerman likely can't be found guilty of a crime under the law, we simply don't know enough about the situation beyond the shadow of a doubt. But he is certainly guilty of instigating and escalating the situation, he certainly pulled the trigger, and is guilty (not in a court of law sense) of murdering an innocent person. He likely had/has racist tendencies, acted on them, against orders from the police, started a fight that didn't need to happen; Martin likewise had probably been racially profiled before (he's a black teen in America) and that likely caused some racist reactions in his own mind, along with an aggressive demeanor. So Martin defends himself, and starts to kick Zimmerman's out of shape butt. Zimmerman, in what perhaps he thought may have been self-defense but perhaps was just a response without any thought, pulls the trigger and the rest is history.

Zimmerman's crime wasn't as much pulling the trigger (though it is abhorrent), but it was starting this whole incident. The gunshot was the unfortunate ending to a story that never should have begun.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
RJKarl said:
There are two problems with the silence. Primarily, if Trayvon ran, it would be irrational not to think that a guy who had already profiled as a criminal wouldn't run after. Especially a guy with a gun and who had disobeyed the 911 operator about getting of his car to follow the person. Secondly. he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He had no reason to run.

If the prosecutor wasn't a totally incompetent boob, he could turn that tactic around to implicate Zimmerman. I don't expect he will, but it is a hanging curve.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you're talking about.

His point wasnt so much that this is what happened. His point is that he has an alternative reasonable explanation.

He has a very reasonable story that Martin was the aggressor.

That's all that matters from his perspective.
 
RevDeac06 said:
So I've read some (not all) of this thread and figured I'd give a brief weigh-in. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, or legal expert. I am a coming at this as a Christian ethicist.

That being said- Zimmerman likely can't be found guilty of a crime under the law, we simply don't know enough about the situation beyond the shadow of a doubt. But he is certainly guilty of instigating and escalating the situation, he certainly pulled the trigger, and is guilty (not in a court of law sense) of murdering an innocent person. He likely had/has racist tendencies, acted on them, against orders from the police, started a fight that didn't need to happen; Martin likewise had probably been racially profiled before (he's a black teen in America) and that likely caused some racist reactions in his own mind, along with an aggressive demeanor. So Martin defends himself, and starts to kick Zimmerman's out of shape butt. Zimmerman, in what perhaps he thought may have been self-defense but perhaps was just a response without any thought, pulls the trigger and the rest is history.

Zimmerman's crime wasn't as much pulling the trigger (though it is abhorrent), but it was starting this whole incident. The gunshot was the unfortunate ending to a story that never should have begun.
Click to expand...

Martin is not innocent. Under the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, he initiated the violence. That said, he didn't deserve to die.

There are three escalations here:

1. Zimmerman confronts Martin after being instructed not to.
2. Martin escalates the confrontation to violence.
3. Zimmerman escalates again by resorting to deadly force.

You can't place sole blame on Zimmerman for "starting" the incident - regardless of his motivations - because Martin then unreasonably escalated it himself after that. The issue here is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to save himself from getting beat up.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Just watched this on HLN (they show everything with pauses for commercial breaks so they are running a bit behind what is happening live). I think the defense was trying to show that the state has not presented any evidence about what Martin was doing in the four minutes between when Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin he was running, and when Martin's phone call with Rachel ended. Implication is that Martin was not going home, but rather came back to confront Zimmerman. Had more than enough time to go home during those four minutes.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Zimmerman chasing Martin? He's a crappy neighborhood watch guy if he let the perp out of his sight for four minutes.

Why did he have to go back to the car to call the cops?
 
RJKarl said:
I disagree. I think that this "theory" can be turned around.
Click to expand...

So since you know more than the lawyers trying the case, are you suggesting that the defense should argue a witness whose testimony they presented was full of shit?
 
wfumike02 said:
Martin is not innocent. Under the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, he initiated the violence. That said, he didn't deserve to die.

There are three escalations here:

1. Zimmerman confronts Martin after being instructed not to.
2. Martin escalates the confrontation to violence.
3. Zimmerman escalates again by resorting to deadly force.

You can't place sole blame on Zimmerman for "starting" the incident - regardless of his motivations - because Martin then unreasonably escalated it himself after that. The issue here is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to save himself from getting beat up.
Click to expand...

1 and 3 are accepted to be true. 2 is in doubt and definitely can't be assumed.

What's crazy is that if Zimmerman has thrown the first punch, it wouldn't matter because Martin defended himself adequately to the point that Zimmerman shot him.
 
wfumike02 said:
Martin is not innocent. Under the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, he initiated the violence. That said, he didn't deserve to die.

There are three escalations here:

1. Zimmerman confronts Martin after being instructed not to.
2. Martin escalates the confrontation to violence.
3. Zimmerman escalates again by resorting to deadly force.

You can't place sole blame on Zimmerman for "starting" the incident - regardless of his motivations - because Martin then unreasonably escalated it himself after that. The issue here is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to save himself from getting beat up.
Click to expand...

Never said Martin was innocent or that Zimmerman was the one who first made it physical.

Though it's not debatable that Zimmerman didn't start it, he could have followed police orders. That's the definition of "start," the first mover.

But you're right, Martin didn't deserve to die.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
wfumike02 said:
So since you know more than the lawyers trying the case, are you suggesting that the defense should argue a witness whose testimony they presented was full of shit?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all. They have to try whatever they can. I'm saying the prosecution should poke holes in it.

BTW, there is no reason to say Martin initiated the violence. The evidence is he was scared and trying to get away.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Never said Martin was innocent or that Zimmerman was the one who first made it physical.

Though it's not debatable that Zimmerman didn't start it, he could have followed police orders. That's the definition of "start," the first mover.

But you're right, Martin didn't deserve to die.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying in that but for Zimmerman following/confronting Martin this never would have happened. There's just a very big intervening act by Martin in between Zimmerman's initiation of the situation and the gun shot that can't be discounted.
 
PhDeac said:
Wasn't Zimmerman chasing Martin? He's a crappy neighborhood watch guy if he let the perp out of his sight for four minutes.

Why did he have to go back to the car to call the cops?
Click to expand...

Both good questions. The whole point is that the state did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt (or really even by a preponderance of the evidence) what happened during they those four minutes.
 
PhDeac said:
1 and 3 are accepted to be true. 2 is in doubt and definitely can't be assumed.

What's crazy is that if Zimmerman has thrown the first punch, it wouldn't matter because Martin defended himself adequately to the point that Zimmerman shot him.
Click to expand...

How is 2 in doubt?

Even if Zimmerman threw the first punch - which there's no evidence at all that he did - it's no longer self defense once Zimmerman goes down. If Martin continues to go after Zimmerman after he goes down that's not self defense. The only evidence we have as to this is Zimmerman's testimony and hist injuries which corroborate that testimony, so for the jury to reach a different interpretation they would have to stray pretty far from the evidence. You've also got to remember that Zimmerman doesn't have the burden of proving anything.
 
wfumike02 said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying in that but for Zimmerman following/confronting Martin this never would have happened. There's just a very big intervening act by Martin in between Zimmerman's initiation of the situation and the gun shot that can't be discounted.
Click to expand...

The only "evidence" of that is Zimmerman saying so. What it Zimmerman caught up to Martin and put his hand on Martin's shoulder to get him to stop evading him? That would have been the first act.

What if Martin turned around, Zimmerman was badgering him and Zimmerman had his hand on his gun? Martin's logical assumption that he was being attacked.

There is no definitive proof Martin started the physical confrontation. There is definitive proof that Zimmerman was the instigator of the events that led to him shooting Martin.
 
wfumike02 said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying in that but for Zimmerman following/confronting Martin this never would have happened. There's just a very big intervening act by Martin in between Zimmerman's initiation of the situation and the gun shot that can't be discounted.
Click to expand...

Certainly, Martin may have been able to de-escalate the situation, but it's all what-ifs. Zimmerman could have still pulled a gun.

As I said earlier, this should have never started, and Zimmerman is the one who started it. That's not a crime, but an injustice and a poor decision, neither of which is illegal.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top