Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Remind me which member of the family had the financial details that were one of the primary issues of that hearing.

I recall that it was his brother-in-law, Scott Wilson.

R Remind me whose responsibility it was to have everybody prepaired to testify for this hearing.

MOM, it appears, had everybody ready to testify who he intended to call on to testify.

I guess if BDLR intended to call someone, it would be his job to ensure that they were in a position to testify. Or of course, they could have just continued the hearing.

So, now that you dodged my question, but I answered yours, do you want to try again ?

 

[CherokeeNative]

Perhaps Sanford should have confirmed that those volunteers weren't CCW holders or didn't own guns.

Sounds like joining the NW just limits your freedoms and offers few, if any, advantages/benefits (short of a title, whoop-de-do). Don't join the NW and you get to roam your neighborhood, looking for "bad guys" as much as you want, whenever you want. You are allowed to legally carry a weapon if you have legally obtained a CCW permit. You are allowed to follow anybody you want, in your car, or on foot, and you can even verbally confront them if you so choose. All that and you can STILL call the non-emergency police number to report whatever you wish, or call 911 for crimes in progress, or even partner up with a neighbor to work in unison.

Basically, by forming a NW group, they have put their actions under all sorts of added scrutiny, and limitations, and haven't benefited at all; all because of a desire to be proactive about the ongoing crime in their neighborhood.

Just catching up with the thread - newbie here - and I just couldn't pass this statement up. You are correct, to a point, and from that point, if you continue your conduct as you describe above, you do so at your own peril.

Breach of rule 4 removed. Do not copy and paste material from elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[12AX7]

Well, in fairness, they're both young, they were both involved in a fatal shooting...

... I guess if there's any other common factor that makes a lot of people make stuff up out of whole cloth about TM?

They both had middle fingers too.

I agree that Trayvon was most likely nowhere near as bad as this De'Marquise character, and that it was ill-conceived on Robert Zimmerman, Jr's part to endorse that comparison. I think Trayvon had probably bought into the "thug life" nonsense to a far lesser degree.

George Zimmerman was most likely nowhere near as bad as that Jeffrey Dahmer character.

The problem is, how was George supposed to know that with this guy on top of him, beating him and refusing to stop?

Yeah. Just look at the results of the almost non-stop beating George endured. Life-threatening. Trayvon left George with no other option than to shoot.

If George's story is true, that is.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't believe any part of George's story. I mean, no one here has shown any inconsistencies of his stories at all.

I suppose if Trayvon intended to kill George he would have actually been beating the crap out of George instead of just restraining him. But you are right to question what is going through George's mind at the time. How is George supposed to tell the difference between actually getting the crap beat out of himself and just imagining that he was getting the crap beat out of himself. George's delusions however do not meet the "reasonably believe" standard required by the self defense laws.

This.

 

[12AX7]

snipped to save space

Welcome to the forum!

Good post

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So if it can be shown that you are the aggressor and "provoked" the other person to attack you in some way, you forfeit your right to self-defense. The law also provides that self-defense is not available to a person who is the first aggressor, and later finds himself on the losing end, unless such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.

IOW, even if GZ was the initial aggressor, fear of great bodily harm and the inability to escape because TM was on top of him still allow him to invoke traditional self-defense.

We as mothers, parents, grandparents, school officials, law enforcement, teach our children that when a stranger follows you, someone tries to come near you, touches you, chases you, you fight, you scream, you kick, you scream some more and you fight some more.

Or, in the case of TM, you don't call the police, and you don't get tot he safety of the house you are staying at. Instead, you loiter on the dog walk in-between the houses.

If the jurors who will ultimately decide Zimmerman's fate are people of reasonable minds, they will recognize that Trayvon was walking on a public street, confronting no one and was himself confronted by a self-appointed mediator of public safety. He was confronted and quizzed

You should let the state know about this evidence of who started this confrontation, last time they were asked in court, they didn't have any. Witness 8 seems to think TM "quizzed" GZ first.

Under Florida law, Trayvon was legally defending himself. He was justified in using force under §§ 776.012 and 776.013. Trayvon OWNS Florida's Stand Your Ground and the Use of Force laws..

Then he should go ahead and file for immunity from prosecution.

Aside from the criminal act of stalking,

Was GZ charged with stalking and I missed it ? No ?

I'm sorry to have snipped your post, there was simply too much supposition and flowery language that didn't bear addressing.

Welcome to the fray.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah. Just look at the results of the almost non-stop beating George endured. Life-threatening. Trayvon left George with no other option than to shoot.

Don't you guys get tired of posting pictures we have all seen dozens of times or more ?

We get it, you're incredulous.

The jury may be to, but since they aren't here, the argument is pointless.

 

[Dan O.]

I recall that it was his brother-in-law, Scott Wilson.

Thanks for looking that up. I was mistaken as obviously you were too in your first reply.

But, now that we've gotten into it,

MOM, it appears, had everybody ready to testify who he intended to call on to testify.

Exactly. Had MOM done due diligence to discover what the family assets were before asking them to give sworn testimony at this hearing?

I guess if BDLR intended to call someone, it would be his job to ensure that they were in a position to testify. Or of course, they could have just continued the hearing.

It wasn't the prosecution's duty to bring rebuttal witnesses in this hearing. He established that there was pertinent information that the family withheld. He investigated afterwards, purgory charges were brought, another hearing was held and the bond was revoked. That's the way it works.

Have you seen a doctor? You really should get that condition checked.

So, now that you dodged my question, but I answered yours, do you want to try again ?

Try what? I asked a simple question and got a snarky answer. Part of you question was answered in my initial post. The other part I don't believe I know, may not even be public and I don't see how it is even relevant to this discussion.

 

[12AX7]

Don't you guys get tired of posting pictures we have all seen dozens of times or more ?

We get it, you're incredulous.

The jury may be to, but since they aren't here, the argument is pointless.

Nah, you don't get it.

Your boy George did not suffer a severe beating at the hands of Trayvon. I understand that pic causes you some discomfort, because I suspect you know that George's description of this savage attack doesn't match the evidence.

Others see it too. But for you to keep up your defense of George requires indignation that this pic keeps coming up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thanks for looking that up. I was mistaken as obviously you were too in your first reply.

I wasn't mistaken in my first reply.

But, now that we've gotten into it,
Exactly. Had MOM done due diligence to discover what the family assets were before asking them to give sworn testimony at this hearing?

Why are you asking me about what MOM may or may not have done ?

If you think he did or didn't do something, simply say that and provide evidence.

It wasn't the prosecution's duty to bring rebuttal witnesses in this hearing. He established that there was pertinent information that the family withheld. He investigated afterwards, purgory charges were brought, another hearing was held and the bond was revoked. That's the way it works.

Have you seen a doctor? You really should get that condition checked.

Complain about snark then turn around and add more ?

Try what? I asked a simple question and got a snarky answer. Part of you question was answered in my initial post. The other part I don't believe I know, may not even be public and I don't see how it is even relevant to this discussion.

I wanted you to do your own research and determine why Robert Zimmerman JR. wouldn't be at that family gathering - because you seemed to expect that he would be. Was that expectation reasonable ? Do you know ?

 

[Dan O.]

The jury may be to, but since they aren't here, the argument is pointless.

And you have what proof that they aren't here?


BTW, I may have to go offline for a few weeks when this case goes to trial. You know how difficult it is to get out of public service.

 

[CherokeeNative]

IOW, even if GZ was the initial aggressor, fear of great bodily harm and the inability to escape because TM was on top of him still allow him to invoke traditional self-defense.

Ahhh, but what you fail to recognize is the forensic evidence will establish that GZ was not on his back when the gun was fired. Forensic experts will prove that it is a scientific impossibility for GZ to have been on his back and have the angle of the bullet such that it is. The shot could not have occurred with GZ lying on his back. There was not enough room for GZ to grab Trayvon's clothing and then pull them towards himself while positioned on his back. At the exact same time that he is pulling those garments in a direction that is towards himself and to his left he has to fire a straight front to back shot with no angle, using the gun that is in his right hand where his elbow cannot go below ground level and prevents his forearm from moving in an arc. There is absolutely no way to accomplish a straight shot with no angle, because Trayvon’s body would have to be both distant and close at the very same time. Distant so GZ could get his forearm with the gun hand on it under Trayvon’s chest, while at the same time, with enough distance for GZ to pull Trayvon’s garment 4 to 5 inches towards himself. In this position there is only room and range of motion enough to get a contact shot with an angle.

If both GZ and Trayvon are laying prone to the ground, then GZ can’t pull leftwards with his left hand because the ground prevents it. So the only position that allows a solution for the garment pull and the no angle shot, is if GZ is either over Trayvon or if they are both standing.

Or, in the case of TM, you don't call the police, and you don't get tot he safety of the house you are staying at. Instead, you loiter on the dog walk in-between the houses.

Trayvon was at liberty to do whatever he damn well pleased, but the evidence doesn't support that he was "loitering". That is the same tactic as trying to blame the rape victim for having provocative clothing.

You should let the state know about this evidence of who started this confrontation, last time they were asked in court, they didn't have any. Witness 8 seems to think TM "quizzed" GZ first.

Trayvon asked a legitimate question - one that you would think an adult would have been able to respond to. Witnesses heard arguing with one voice being authoritive.

Then he should go ahead and file for immunity from prosecution.

The complete lack of common decency of those support GZ never ceases to amaze me. I will say this. I believe that GZ committed Murder 1 that night - I believe he found himself in a situation where he realized that if Trayvon survived the altercation, GZ was going to be charged with assault and brandishing a firearm. After 9 years of schooling with criminal justice as his (cough cough) major, he was well aware that he was looking a jail time if Trayvon survived. But if that is the best you have....

Was GZ charged with stalking and I missed it ? No ?

The prosecution does not have to charge the crime in order to argue and establish to the jury that defendant was in the process of committing a crime or something prohibited by law at the time he acted.

I'm sorry to have snipped your post, there was simply too much supposition and flowery language that didn't bear addressing.

Welcome to the fray.

Fine with me - just wait until trial and you can hear it then.

 

[Unabogie]

Welcome!

 

[Dan O.]

I wasn't mistaken in my first reply.

Right. That's why you waited until your second reply to tell me I was wrong.

I accepted your answer. And even thanked you for it. Yes, that was a real thanks. But you go on and on and on...

Why are you asking me about what MOM may or may not have done ?

That was a rhetorical question. Everybody that has been following this case knows that MOM blew it by trusting his clients to be honest. Of course, it's also possible to look at it as a brilliant play by MOM. She now is in control of the defense fund and the outrage of George being put back in jail may have increased donations.

If you think he did or didn't do something, simply say that and provide evidence.

Are you implying that I am implying that MOM orchestrated this? Wouldn't that get me into trouble if I were to make such a slanderous statement without proof? I don't need to fall for that trap. It's good enough to say that MOM blew it. For that the evidence already stands.

 

[tsig]

Ahhh, but what you fail to recognize is the forensic evidence will establish that GZ was not on his back when the gun was fired. Forensic experts will prove that it is a scientific impossibility for GZ to have been on his back and have the angle of the bullet such that it is. The shot could not have occurred with GZ lying on his back. There was not enough room for GZ to grab Trayvon's clothing and then pull them towards himself while positioned on his back. At the exact same time that he is pulling those garments in a direction that is towards himself and to his left he has to fire a straight front to back shot with no angle, using the gun that is in his right hand where his elbow cannot go below ground level and prevents his forearm from moving in an arc. There is absolutely no way to accomplish a straight shot with no angle, because Trayvon’s body would have to be both distant and close at the very same time. Distant so GZ could get his forearm with the gun hand on it under Trayvon’s chest, while at the same time, with enough distance for GZ to pull Trayvon’s garment 4 to 5 inches towards himself. In this position there is only room and range of motion enough to get a contact shot with an angle.

If both GZ and Trayvon are laying prone to the ground, then GZ can’t pull leftwards with his left hand because the ground prevents it. So the only position that allows a solution for the garment pull and the no angle shot, is if GZ is either over Trayvon or if they are both standing.




Trayvon was at liberty to do whatever he damn well pleased, but the evidence doesn't support that he was "loitering". That is the same tactic as trying to blame the rape victim for having provocative clothing.




Trayvon asked a legitimate question - one that you would think an adult would have been able to respond to. Witnesses heard arguing with one voice being authoritive.




The complete lack of common decency of those support GZ never ceases to amaze me. I will say this. I believe that GZ committed Murder 1 that night - I believe he found himself in a situation where he realized that if Trayvon survived the altercation, GZ was going to be charged with assault and brandishing a firearm. After 9 years of schooling with criminal justice as his (cough cough) major, he was well aware that he was looking a jail time if Trayvon survived. But if that is the best you have....




The prosecution does not have to charge the crime in order to argue and establish to the jury that defendant was in the process of committing a crime or something prohibited by law at the time he acted.



Fine with me - just wait until trial and you can hear it then.

Welcome to JREF, may your stay be long and interesting.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ahhh, but what you fail to recognize is the forensic evidence will establish that GZ was not on his back when the gun was fired.

Let me know when that actually happens.

Trayvon was at liberty to do whatever he damn well pleased, but the evidence doesn't support that he was "loitering". That is the same tactic as trying to blame the rape victim for having provocative clothing.

GZ was at liberty to do whatever he damn well pleased, but the evidence doesn't support that he was "stalking".

It's absolutely not the same tactic as blaming a rape victim. You claimed TM was a littel scared child trying with all his might to get away. In that case, he should have called the cops, had witness 8 call the cops, and run the hell home or to a well lit area instead of loitering in the dog walk.

Trayvon asked a legitimate question - one that you would think an adult would have been able to respond to. Witnesses heard arguing with one voice being authoritive.

So TM was being 'authoritative' when he confronted GZ and demanded that GZ account for himself in his own neighborhood ?

The complete lack of common decency of those support GZ never ceases to amaze me. I will say this. I believe that GZ committed Murder 1 that night - I believe he found himself in a situation where he realized that if Trayvon survived the altercation, GZ was going to be charged with assault and brandishing a firearm. After 9 years of schooling with criminal justice as his (cough cough) major, he was well aware that he was looking a jail time if Trayvon survived. But if that is the best you have....

I'm sorry, was there an argument in there somewhere ? Many people here believe many different things.
If you think we should share your belief, make a case for it. Otherwise, meh.

The prosecution does not have to charge the crime in order to argue and establish to the jury that defendant was in the process of committing a crime or something prohibited by law at the time he acted.

When the state present the evidence that GZ was committing a crime he hasn't been charged with, then you'll have something.

 

[KatieG]

Welcome, Cherokee Nation!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Right. That's why you waited until your second reply to tell me I was wrong.
I accepted your answer. And even thanked you for it. Yes, that was a real thanks. But you go on and on and on...

No, I waited until you asked who was in charge of finances to tell you. RZ jr doesn't live in FL, that's why he wouldn't be there.

Anyway, You are welcome. Moving on...

That was a rhetorical question. Everybody that has been following this case knows that MOM blew it by trusting his clients to be honest. Of course, it's also possible to look at it as a brilliant play by MOM. She now is in control of the defense fund and the outrage of George being put back in jail may have increased donations.

Are you implying that I am implying that MOM orchestrated this? Wouldn't that get me into trouble if I were to make such a slanderous statement without proof? I don't need to fall for that trap. It's good enough to say that MOM blew it. For that the evidence already stands.

Are you sure his clients didn't blow it by trusting him ? If he did his due diligence, would he have been filing for indigence ?

 

[Unabogie]

Are you sure his clients didn't blow it by trusting him ? If he did his due diligence, would he have been filing for indigence ?

It's his fault they were speaking in code at the jailhouse and moving money back and forth like ants with cookie crumbs?

 

[Dancing David]

Shrug. It's not like the Sanford PD covered themselves in glory on this case. He sounds intoxicated. He was taking drugs that don't mix well with alcohol. Seems like a tox screen was in order.

ETA: Damn auto-correct.

I really doubt this would stand at trial, I don't think an impression that someone sounds intoxicated will cut it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's his fault they were speaking in code at the jailhouse and moving money back and forth like ants with cookie crumbs?

I don't see how what you said has anything to do with MOM doing due diligence.

MOM due diligence pretend statement: "please go online and print out your current months bank statements for each account you have so I can fill out this paperwork to file for indigence."

MOM due diligence pretend statement: "I know you have an internet site set up for donations. What't the balance and who is in charge of that ?"

The above seems reasonable to me. YMMV.