• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
We have ne evidnce at all that tm was engaged in criminal activities when this encounter occured
 
Thank goodness no one even suggested that we do.

I note that you say no one suggested we do (have evidence of).

But people (more than a couple) in this thread have suggested that M was casing the houses.

That is why Dcdrac said:

"We have ne evidnce at all that tm was engaged in criminal activities when this encounter occured"

So you saying:

"Thank goodness no one even suggested that we do." (have evidence)

....doesn't really make sense (or have much of a point, rather) in that context.

If you would care to rephrase it as:

"Thanks goodness no one even suggested that M was engaged in criminal activities":

It would make more sense.

(Of course then I would have to get you links to posts where they do.) :D
 
I note that you say no one suggested we do (have evidence of).

But people (more than a couple) in this thread have suggested that M was casing the houses.

That is why Dcdrac said:

"We have ne evidnce at all that tm was engaged in criminal activities when this encounter occured"

So you saying:

"Thank goodness no one even suggested that we do." (have evidence)

....doesn't really make sense (or have much of a point, rather) in that context.

If you would care to rephrase it as:

"Thanks goodness no one even suggested that M was engaged in criminal activities":

It would make more sense.

(Of course then I would have to get you links to posts where they do.) :D

Suggesting possibilities is not claiming that there is evidence for those possibilities.

It's possible that GZ shot TM earlier during the struggle than he claims.

That's certainly a possibility, but I am not aware of any evidence for it. Perhaps the prosecutor is aware of some.
 
So you've seen the sworn testimony of all the witnesses? Please share.

One other thing...Zimmerman claims TM had both hands on Z's mouth and nose, nearly suffocating him.

How does one emit a loud, deep-throated yell for help as one is being suffocated?

You wrestle your assailant's hands away and yell. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Finally you shoot him.

It's not rocket surgery.
 
Fine. How does someone scream with both their nose and mouth covered?

1) Trying to cover his nose and mouth

Why ? Why was TM covering GZ nose and mouth ? Where are TM injuries that caused him to scream like that ?

Are you really putting forth a scenario where GZ brandished his gun, causing TM to scream like that for that long, all while knowing he had just called the police and knew they would be there any minute ? And then he someone managed to make it look like he was the one actually getting assaulted, and then made up a whole story 2 minutes later when the police arrived.

Really ? :rolleyes:

Why was TM screaming so load and so long, and where are his injuries ?
 
Why would TM put his hand over GZ's mouth?

Not to suffocate.

Because GZ was screaming for help, and TM had to try to shut him up.

Funny how that possible version isn't so popular in the media.

you beat me to it.
 
Bang!

Help, help!

I think some people just like to argue. :)

I think the case is pretty simple.

I think GZ could probably be charged with something, but nowhere near murder 2.

Given what I think I know at the moment, I wouldn't convict him of anything.

More info is always good to have, though.
 
I think GZ could probably be charged with something, but nowhere near murder 2.

In total agreement with that manslaughter at the very most
 
It's a real bummer when you can't even make a racist statement without someone accusing you of making a racist statement. What is this country coming to?

Talking about racial profiling and how it it might be viewed or interpreted by the victims is not anything like making racist comments. This comment and the comment about it being revealing are totally uncalled for.
 
I think GZ could probably be charged with something, but nowhere near murder 2.

In total agreement with that manslaughter at the very most

It seems like nobody ( i could have missed someone ) seems like murder 2 was a reasonable charge.

Does anyone then think murder two was something other than a political move ?

Isn't it unethical to charge for a crime you don't think you can convict for ?
 
I listened to the 911 tape, and it's pretty clear to me that Zimmerman wanted to continue looking for Martin. It's also pretty clear that Martin wanted nothing to do with Zimmerman, since he left rather then confront him.

No, it isn't clear that Zimmerman wanted to continue looking for TM. Quite the opposite, actually. TM left (ran away), then came back and there was a confrontation. The only possible reason he came back to the end of the sidewalk where he last saw Zimmerman and his truck, instead of going back to Brandy's house, was to confront Zimmerman. Safety at one end, Zimmerman at the other.

The reason this is so clear is because the sidewalk that connects Brandy's house to the location of the shooting is a straight shot. By examining the available evidence, we can see TM chose to be at the wrong the end of the sidewalk when the confrontation took place.

Just look at a map of the town homes, and you will see it, too. I can't put up links, but Wagist has some good maps, although location "F", where the confrontation took place, needs to be moved closer to the intersection of the two sidewalks, commonly referred to as the "T". At Wagist, click on "Evidence that TM Doubled Back".
 
It seems like nobody ( i could have missed someone ) seems like murder 2 was a reasonable charge.

Does anyone then think murder two was something other than a political move ?

Isn't it unethical to charge for a crime you don't think you can convict for ?

Prosecutors know they can get a conviction with no evidence at all. Just look at the bogus probable cause affidavit in the Zimmerman case. A different path would be a "ham sandwich" indictment from a Grand Jury. Once at trial, they can try to put up as many witnesses as possible to muddle up the picture, then use their "leeway" in closing arguments to invent a scenario of the crime the jury will believe.
 
Ya, if he had gone straight home he'd have been home much earlier, but he obviously didn't, so why is that relevant?

I agree it is not relevant. M has every right to take as long as he wants in getting home.
It's relevant to the narrative that Crump et al told the media originally:

"He had a gun, and Trayvon had Skittles," Benjamin Crump, a family attorney, told The Huffington Post this afternoon.

Martin, 17, a high school junior who lived with his mother in Miami, was visiting his father and stepmother at their home in Sanford, a suburb of Orlando, on the weekend of Feb. 26. During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin's family said he walked to a nearby convenience store to get some candy for his younger brother. On his way back home, according to reports, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a self-appointed captain of The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

If it honestly wasn't relevant why lie about what Martin was doing?
(The NBA game half-time wasn't till after the shooting.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom