Jump to content

TRAYVON MARTIN THREAD


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Just by reading the last several comments still has me confused, because based on media/police reports,videos,and audio. I still don't know which side to choose. I'm hearing Zimmerman didn't have any blood on his clothes, not even Trayvon's blood that was spilled. I see pictures of a 13 year old kid, but according to the police report he was 6' 160 lbs, the same height and weight I was when I was his age. I heard George Zimmerman who was white, then white/hispanic, weighed 100 lbs more than Trayvon, but in the police video he looks about 5'9" 145-155 lbs. So, what is true about this case that we've been told by various reports ?

 

I've heard that this was a gated community, but I've read that this neighborhood was a bad neighborhood. Which is it ? The truth is floating around, but none of us know for sure. None of the people that called 911, when they heard that there was an altercation, even opened the door to their home to see with their eyes what was happening. No one intervened, and Zimmerman did call the police first, but their response was too slow, again, as it always seems. I don't care how many time Zimmerman called the police to this neighborhood, because he wanted them to handle the situations that were happening. Where are all of the police reports of these occasions, that would give me some indication on what Zimmerman was calling for the police for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can't go by what the "media" is reporting.....they only tell you what they want you to hear in order to manipulate your opinion.....wait until the TRUE evidence comes out in court before you try to decide....that's why citizens are tried in COURT and not in the "media".......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries are irrelevant...to PROVE 2nd Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must PROVE that Zimmerman did not feel threatened...they should have gone for manslaughter......that would be much easier to prove.....

 

JT brought up a good point, if Zimmerman went to go grab his pistol, that might make the charge at the very least interesting.

 

The prosecutor is going for the Hail Mary! I am very curious to see what she will present to the grand jury let alone the actual jury.

 

The tough part is the jury will find him guilty simply from the fact he followed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point has been raised here, that hopefully both attorneys will argue. They BOTH had the right of "Stand Your Ground." Apparently they both felt threatened in some way.

 

If, in fact, the last statement by Zimmerman is, "Hey, what are you doing here?" and then Martin, in fact, engages him, then they're both at fault; however, used their right of "Stand Your Ground."

 

Should Zimmerman have been brought in for questioning - yes. Should he have been charged? Questionable.

 

Here's the problem, though. If Zimmerman would've stayed put, then this wouldn't have happened. Had Martin just said to Zimmerman, hey, I'm staying with so and so, and was/just got back from the store and going home to X address, then this wouldn't have happened. Both are at fault. Both assumed that the other was up to no good...it escalated, and unfortunately, someone was killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point has been raised here, that hopefully both attorneys will argue. They BOTH had the right of "Stand Your Ground." Apparently they both felt threatened in some way.

 

If, in fact, the last statement by Zimmerman is, "Hey, what are you doing here?" and then Martin, in fact, engages him, then they're both at fault; however, used their right of "Stand Your Ground."

 

Should Zimmerman have been brought in for questioning - yes. Should he have been charged? Questionable.

 

Here's the problem, though. If Zimmerman would've stayed put, then this wouldn't have happened. Had Martin just said to Zimmerman, hey, I'm staying with so and so, and was/just got back from the store and going home to X address, then this wouldn't have happened. Both are at fault. Both assumed that the other was up to no good...it escalated, and unfortunately, someone was killed.

 

My thoughts exactly. This tragedy could have been averted by both participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone slugging you in the face knocking you to the ground and then on top of you beating your head against the pavement causing lacerations to the back of your head with a witness watching is pretty clear evidence of self defense. I doubt under those circumstances anyone is going to judge him guilty of manslaughter much less murder. If Trayvon had survived, He probably should have been charged with assault.

 

the witnesses saw the fight in progress. They don't see how the fight started. You can't start a fight, then when you are losing, claim self defense. And again, what was Trayvon motive to fight Zimmerman. He was minding his own business walking home. Zimmerman thought Trayvon was up to no good.

 

I can understand you giving Zimmerman the self defense excuse, but then to blame an unarmed kid who was walking home with assault, (When there are clearly phone calls that state Zimmerman labeled Trayvon as a Punk, who look like he was up to no good) Is way over the top. Even people who believe Zimmerman don't go as far as charging Trayvon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the witnesses saw the fight in progress. They don't see how the fight started. You can't start a fight, then when you are losing, claim self defense. And again, what was Trayvon motive to fight Zimmerman. He was minding his own business walking home. Zimmerman thought Trayvon was up to no good.

 

I can understand you giving Zimmerman the self defense excuse, but then to blame an unarmed kid who was walking home with assault, (When there are clearly phone calls that state Zimmerman labeled Trayvon as a Punk, who look like he was up to no good) Is way over the top. Even people who believe Zimmerman don't go as far as charging Trayvon.

 

Here in lies the problem. Its not up to the defense to prove who started the fight, its up to the prosecution. They have a tough task and are in a no win situation in my opinion. If Zimmerman is found not guilty of if this gets kicked out of court, they will be labeled racist just as Zimmerman and the Sanford police have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point has been raised here, that hopefully both attorneys will argue. They BOTH had the right of "Stand Your Ground." Apparently they both felt threatened in some way.

 

If, in fact, the last statement by Zimmerman is, "Hey, what are you doing here?" and then Martin, in fact, engages him, then they're both at fault; however, used their right of "Stand Your Ground."

 

Should Zimmerman have been brought in for questioning - yes. Should he have been charged? Questionable.

 

Here's the problem, though. If Zimmerman would've stayed put, then this wouldn't have happened. Had Martin just said to Zimmerman, hey, I'm staying with so and so, and was/just got back from the store and going home to X address, then this wouldn't have happened. Both are at fault. Both assumed that the other was up to no good...it escalated, and unfortunately, someone was killed.

 

Please explain to me what authority Zimmerman had to ask Trayvon "What are you doing here?" He was not the apartment owner or a police. And Trayvon does not have to answer him. He was not committing a crime. He was just walking home.

 

And if George Zimmerman asked Trayvon this, then this completely throws out his entire excuse. He claimed he was walking to his truck, and Trayvon just ran up and attacked him. He never said they had a conversation.

 

So if you believe they had a conversation, then this completely validates Trayvon girlfriend's story.

 

By the way, just because it was a misunderstanding, still doesn't exempt you from Manslaughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in lies the problem. Its not up to the defense to prove who started the fight, its up to the prosecution. They have a tough task and are in a no win situation in my opinion. If Zimmerman is found not guilty of if this gets kicked out of court, they will be labeled racist just as Zimmerman and the Sanford police have.

 

the prosecution didn't label him a racist. That's the media. The media isn't trying the case.

 

And the defense does have to prove who started the fight. Their client is claiming self defense. So in order to prove self defense, they must prove Trayvon started the fight. So their case isn't going to be easy either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the prosecution didn't label him a racist. That's the media. The media isn't trying the case.

 

And the defense does have to prove who started the fight. Their client is claiming self defense. So in order to prove self defense, they must prove Trayvon started the fight. So their case isn't going to be easy either.

 

You obviously do not know very much about the law JT. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't even have to call witnesses if they don't want to. The prosecution must make their case first if they cant make their case, the defense doesn't need to do anything at all.

 

Also, who said the prosecution called Zimmerman a racist? I'm talking about the prosecution themselves. If they don't win, they will be labeled racist as will the Jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously do not know very much about the law JT. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't even have to call witnesses if they don't want to. The prosecution must make their case first if they cant make their case, the defense doesn't need to do anything at all.

 

Also, who said the prosecution called Zimmerman a racist? I'm talking about the prosecution themselves. If they don't win, they will be labeled racist as will the Jury.

 

The defense has to prove the prosecution case is wrong. Now the burden of proof is alot more on the prosecution, but the defense can't just go to court and be mute. They have to give a defense of why the prosecution case is unjust. Just look at the OJ case. OJ lawyers, had to prove the glove didn't fit. They didn't sit there mute.

 

And again, Zimmerman has to prove it was self defense. You can't just shoot someone and say, self defense without showing proof of it. The prosecution is out to show it wasn't. This isn't one of those cut and dry cases where the burden of proof is all on the prosecution.

 

For example, If you accuse me of robbing the bank, but you have no evidence, then its all on you to prove I did it. All I have to say, is I that I wasn't there. But in this case, we know Zimmerman shot Trayvon. So there is a burden on Zimmerman to prove why he did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense has to prove the prosecution case is wrong. Now the burden of proof is alot more on the prosecution, but the defense can't just go to court and be mute. They have to give a defense of why the prosecution case is unjust. Just look at the OJ case. OJ lawyers, had to prove the glove didn't fit. They didn't sit there mute.

 

And again, Zimmerman has to prove it was self defense. You can't just shoot someone and say, self defense without showing proof of it. The prosecution is out to show it wasn't. This isn't one of those cut and dry cases where the burden of proof is all on the prosecution.

 

For example, If you accuse me of robbing the bank, but you have no evidence, then its all on you to prove I did it. All I have to say, is I that I wasn't there. But in this case, we know Zimmerman shot Trayvon. So there is a burden on Zimmerman to prove why he did it.

 

I guess you didn't understand what I said. If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman was the aggressor, the defense doesn't need to do anything. Zimmerman doesn't need to prove why he did it. The prosecution does and that is not likely to happen unless they have a smoking gun so to speak!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't understand what I said. If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman was the aggressor, the defense doesn't need to do anything. Zimmerman doesn't need to prove why he did it. The prosecution does and that is not likely to happen unless they have a smoking gun so to speak!

 

So if this is the case, why does the defense need to show up. The prosecution doesn't just give their side of the story, then ask the jury do they believe it or not. Then of the jury says NO, The defense then goes ahead with their case.

 

In this type of case the defense has a greater burden to prove, because its been establish that Zimmerman is the killer. So when the prosecution gives their side of the story, the Defense will have to give a rebuttal. If the defense says nothing, or very little, then how far can that go in proving the prosecution wrong.

 

YES, there are cases in which the burden of proof is all on the prosecution, but this is not one of them. Although I do know the prosecution burden of proof is greater than the defense.

 

By the way, if its the always up to the prosecution to prove a case, why do we have plea bargains? And honestly, don't be surprised if Zimmerman agree to plea to a lesser manslaughter charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't start a fight, then when you are losing, claim self defense.

 

I can understand you giving Zimmerman the self defense excuse, but then to blame an unarmed kid who was walking home with assault, (When there are clearly phone calls that state Zimmerman labeled Trayvon as a Punk, who look like he was up to no good) Is way over the top. Even people who believe Zimmerman don't go as far as charging Trayvon.

 

You have no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. In fact, there is no evidence I have seen that Zimmerman was doing anything other than defending himself from Teayvons attack. The witnesses didn't see the start but they DID see Trayvon BEATING Zimmerman. That's pretty strong self defense evidence right there. Just because Trayvon wasn't armed doesn't mean he couldn't have been the aggressor and felt superior physically because of his height advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. The witnesses didn't see the start but they DID see Trayvon BEATING Zimmerman. That's pretty strong self defense evidence right there. Just because Trayvon wasn't armed doesn't mean he couldn't have been the aggressor and felt superior physically because of his height advantage.

 

and there is no proof Trayvon started the fight either. Just because Trayvon is beating Zimmerman doesn't mean Zimmerman can claim self defense.

 

IF Zimmerman started the fight, you can't claimed self defense when you start losing.

 

for example, if you punch me first, then we start to brawl, and I am winning the fight, you can't shoot me and claim self-defense. YOU STARTED THE FIGHT.

 

Now you are right there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. However, given the evidence of the 911 tape, in which he admits to following Trayvon, the girlfriend account, the screaming on the tape (in which many experts claim that was Trayvon), Zimmerman past assault history, and his numerous calls over the past to the Sanford Police, it seems more than likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

 

And again, No one in their right mind, who is being followed by a stranger in an unfamiliar neighborhood, would just approach them and hit them. Your first instinct would be to run, unless you are attack first. Remember, Trayvon was just walking home minding his own business. Zimmerman is the one that called the police, called Trayvon a punk, and accuse him of being up to no good. So given this set of information, who is more likely to have started the confrontation? It clearly points to Zimmerman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this is the case, why does the defense need to show up. The prosecution doesn't just give their side of the story, then ask the jury do they believe it or not. Then of the jury says NO, The defense then goes ahead with their case.

 

In this type of case the defense has a greater burden to prove, because its been establish that Zimmerman is the killer. So when the prosecution gives their side of the story, the Defense will have to give a rebuttal. If the defense says nothing, or very little, then how far can that go in proving the prosecution wrong.

 

YES, there are cases in which the burden of proof is all on the prosecution, but this is not one of them. Although I do know the prosecution burden of proof is greater than the defense.

 

By the way, if its the always up to the prosecution to prove a case, why do we have plea bargains? And honestly, don't be surprised if Zimmerman agree to plea to a lesser manslaughter charge.

 

Unless there is evidence we don't know of, there will be no plea. If the prosecution has what we all think they have (nothing) then this will be a fast trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and there is no proof Trayvon started the fight either. Just because Trayvon is beating Zimmerman doesn't mean Zimmerman can claim self defense.

 

IF Zimmerman started the fight, you can't claimed self defense when you start losing.

 

for example, if you punch me first, then we start to brawl, and I am winning the fight, you can't shoot me and claim self-defense. YOU STARTED THE FIGHT.

 

Now you are right there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. However, given the evidence of the 911 tape, in which he admits to following Trayvon, the girlfriend account, the screaming on the tape (in which many experts claim that was Trayvon), Zimmerman past assault history, and his numerous calls over the past to the Sanford Police, it seems more than likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

 

And again, No one in their right mind, who is being followed by a stranger in an unfamiliar neighborhood, would just approach them and hit them. Your first instinct would be to run, unless you are attack first. Remember, Trayvon was just walking home minding his own business. Zimmerman is the one that called the police, called Trayvon a punk, and accuse him of being up to no good. So given this set of information, who is more likely to have started the confrontation? It clearly points to Zimmerman.

 

He admits to following? You mean when the dispatcher ask him to keep an eye on Trayvon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He admits to following? You mean when the dispatcher ask him to keep an eye on Trayvon?

 

no the part where he tells the dispatcher that he is following , and the dispatcher tells him not to do that. Im sure you forgot about that that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no the part where he tells the dispatcher that he is following , and the dispatcher tells him not to do that. Im sure you forgot about that that part.

 

So tell me JT, which came first, telling him to keep an eye on him or saying don't do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell me JT, which came first, telling him to keep an eye on him or saying don't do that?

 

Here is the entire 911 call from Zimmerman. Zimmerman says Trayvon is walking toward the direction he was at. He says Trayvon is staring at him, and he has something in his waste band. He says Trayvon is coming to check him out. The Dispatcher says, LET ME KNOW IF HE IS DOING SOMETHING ELSE.

 

Then Zimmerman says, he is running. The dispatcher ask are you following him. Zimmerman says Yes, The dispatcher tells him NOT TO DO THAT.

 

The dispatcher does not tell him to follow him and keep an eye on him

 

 

Im not going to continue to try Zimmerman on this site. He will have his day in court. But regardless whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, its clear the police didn't do their part. Zimmerman didn't get a drug test or alcohol test. And Trayvon set unidentified for 3 days, when all they had to do was get his cell phone and call his parents. Who knows, Zimmerman may not be guilty but the way the police handle the case, it makes it seem like a cover up. So Sanford Police didn't do Zimmerman any favors in that regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Trayvon set unidentified for 3 days, when all they had to do was get his cell phone and call his parents.

So Trayvon was missing for 3 days? If his parents had contacted the police in those 3 days wouldnt they have been informed of his passing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because Trayvon is beating Zimmerman doesn't mean Zimmerman can claim self defense.

 

Are you kidding me? What planet are you living on?

 

IF Zimmerman started the fight, you can't claimed self defense when you start losing.

 

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight, or even did anything but defend himself as Traylon was beating him and slamming his head against the pavement?

 

 

for example, if you punch me first, then we start to brawl, and I am winning the fight, you can't shoot me and claim self-defense. YOU STARTED THE FIGHT.

 

 

... again, no evidence whatsoever Zimmerman started the fight.

 

Now you are right there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. However, given the evidence of the 911 tape, in which he admits to following Trayvon, the girlfriend account, the screaming on the tape (in which many experts claim that was Trayvon), Zimmerman past assault history, and his numerous calls over the past to the Sanford Police, it seems more than likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

 

now that's a streatch, at best

 

And again, No one in their right mind, who is being followed by a stranger in an unfamiliar neighborhood, would just approach them and hit them. Your first instinct would be to run, unless you are attack first. Remember, Trayvon was just walking home minding his own business. Zimmerman is the one that called the police, called Trayvon a punk, and accuse him of being up to no good. So given this set of information, who is more likely to have started the confrontation? It clearly points to Zimmerman.

 

I doubt a jury would buy that story. In my opinion, I see nothing but self defense by Zimmerman. Following or even confronting someone is not a crime, especially for a neighborhood watch captain legally carrying a gun. He was doing his job..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...