• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Zimmerman trial

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

swalsh411

Senior Member
I disagree...in his position as a duly appointed neighborhood watch volunteer he reported a suspicious person. He did not have to follow that person, nor did he have to get out of his car. He directly put himself in potential danger when it was not necessary.
Zimmerman had every right to get out and talk to somebody he didn't know in his neighborhood. What law did he break by doing that?

Regardless, irrelevant to the core legal issue of the case.

edit: And why would M have feared for his own safety? He was bigger than Zimmerman. Far more likely in my opinion that he saw an opportunity to win a fight against a "cracker".
 
Last edited:


CavemanLawyer

Senior Member
Well, the detective's testimony you cited is a pretty bad mistake. Asking for a third-degree murder charge was also boneheaded. I also submit that whoever prepped Rachel Jeantel for Day 1 should look into a new profession.
I am referring to the trial prosecutors who had to just deal with the boneheaded charging decision of the special prosecutor Angela Corey. She set them up to fail and I do think they did a competent job notwithstanding the clear mistake I mentioned.

As for Jeantel's testimony I see witnesses like this all the time and honestly no amount of prep can ever remove a bad attitude. You can get them to suck it up and hold it together during direct and some of cross but if a witness like Jeantel is going to testify over a matter of hours then its going to come out. Even if you account for her youth, reluctance to be there, lack of native English speaking ability, etc... she is just plain rude and unreliable as a witness.
 

Rushia

Senior Member
Zimmerman had every right to get out and talk to somebody he didn't know in his neighborhood. What law did he break by doing that?

Regardless, irrelevant to the core legal issue of the case.

edit: And why would M have feared for his own safety? He was bigger than Zimmerman. Far more likely in my opinion that he saw an opportunity to win a fight against a "cracker".
Don't be silly. He wanted to win against a "cracka". There is a difference. :rolleyes: LOL!
 

csi7

Senior Member
The prosecuting attorney has been indicted for falsifying arrest warrant and complaint and for withholding photographic evidence in this case. This same prosecuting attorney put a black woman in prison for twenty years for use of "stand your ground" defense.

Fair rules, it depends on where you are sitting. The people on the jury are the ones who have to live with their "legal" choices, knowing they had to choose what decision they made, both individually and as a group. For all those people who worked on the case from the beginning, including the police chief who was terminated for refusing the above prosecuting attorney's 'statement of complaint', this story has many views, none of which were present in the moment of "no return".

Right or wrong, a life was ended, and along with that life, all those connected to it, have been changed, to carry the aftermath of the event for their lifetime. Fair, not so easily defined, even in legal terms.
 

cetiya

Member
there is something i never understood. if zimmerman had a gun, why did he get in the position of being on his back getting beat up. if i had a gun, i wouldnt let someone beat me up first. did trayvon even know he had a gun? wouldnt he run away from someone with a gun?
 
there is something i never understood. if zimmerman had a gun, why did he get in the position of being on his back getting beat up. if i had a gun, i wouldnt let someone beat me up first. did trayvon even know he had a gun? wouldnt he run away from someone with a gun?
he did not pull the gun or use it till it was drawn and shot. I am not a Zimmerman fan, I think he did lots of things wrong and is a liar and if he would have taken the stand he would have been torn apart. With that said he was found not guilty, regardless of personal opinions of the subject, people need to move on. This was never a case about race which it has been made out to be. It was a case of the fair and honest use of deadly force and its application in an assault case.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
there is something i never understood. if zimmerman had a gun, why did he get in the position of being on his back getting beat up. if i had a gun, i wouldnt let someone beat me up first. did trayvon even know he had a gun? wouldnt he run away from someone with a gun?
If you're standing there talking to somebody at normal conversation distance and they sucker punch you and then tackle you, you're not going to have time draw your gun. (not saying that is what happened with Zimmerman but just in general).
 

tranquility

Senior Member
With the wind down of discussion, let me add something that greatly bothers me on some posters' opinions on the facts.

I am that guy.

I am a guy who will check out something I think suspicious. I will look, hard, at people doing things I think need a closer look. I am a guy who has an emergency kit AND a first aid kit in the trunk of my car. I used to call the emergency kit an earthquake kit, but I added flares, jumper cables and a can of fix-a-flat so it's now an emergency kit. I will flare up an accident, jump start a car or hand over the can to anyone who needs it in a heartbeat. If that heartbeat stops, I am confident in my skills to do what any trained person without equipment can do to help and if it is only a boo-boo, I have the cold packs, dressings or splints to deal with those as well. I will lift other people's kids off the store display and chastise them if they are being a nuisance. That includes teenagers in groups. I always stop and buy something from kids who set up a stand on their own, even if I don't want any Kool-aid, lemonade or cookies because that's what I think a good neighbor does. (This rule does not apply to parent set up tables outside of stores to sell mass market items.) I will spend time trying to catch a roving dog, even if I am in a suit and its raining out. I take pictures of lost animal posters in the neighborhood, just in case I find what they are looking for.

Not only am I that guy who would do those things, I have done all those things on more than one occasion.

I go on patrol of my neighborhood twice a day and have called the police, caused people to run when I did my looking, got explanations from people who knew what they were doing was odd and had a couple of verbal run in's with ne'er-do-wells who seemed to think better of it when the phone came out as well as a laugh or two when I realize I was wrong. Now, I don't carry a concealed firearm as my state is rather restrictive on such things—but I would if I could. (If I did, I'd go to the range at least twice as much as I do now.) Sure, I have a little false bravado on my patrols from having two large pit-mixes with muscles on muscles with a combined weight of about 150 to 160 who stay about six feet away from me at all times. But, while scary looking, I suspect the only real help they would be in a true confrontation would be to give me kisses after I had my hat handed to me by some youngster. While I might have a trick or two up my sleeve that would require the youngster to be quite serious or find they might have underestimated the power of old age and treachery, they are simply tricks. A determined assailant would win.

What is suspicious? I don't know how to describe it. But, through the years, I've probably walked the non-gated neighborhood of about 800 homes 2000 hours along with driving to and from work, the market, church or any of a number of places. I know what it looks like and what the people look like and what their cars look like and what they do in their front yards and how they move between yards and...well and any of a number of things my brain has picked up on but has not notified me of as yet. I haven't seen everyone who lives there or all of their guests or all that they do, but I certainly have a sense of what is odd or suspicious. I bet you do for your neighborhood too. Some of my subconscious learning may be enhanced by the fact I am always alert when outside. I am always looking around, seeing, noticing.

While I have no idea of the true facts in the Zimmerman case, I know some have complained about him doing some things in regards to what he thought was suspicious behavior. That scares me a bit. It scares me more than a bit some want to criminalize behaviors I do all the time because of the independent actions of another party. Things I do because that's what I think I should do. I call it being a good neighbor. Some others here seem to call it something else.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
With the wind down of discussion, let me add something that greatly bothers me on some posters' opinions on the facts.

I am that guy.

I am a guy who will check out something I think suspicious. I will look, hard, at people doing things I think need a closer look. I am a guy who has an emergency kit AND a first aid kit in the trunk of my car. I used to call the emergency kit an earthquake kit, but I added flares, jumper cables and a can of fix-a-flat so it's now an emergency kit. I will flare up an accident, jump start a car or hand over the can to anyone who needs it in a heartbeat. If that heartbeat stops, I am confident in my skills to do what any trained person without equipment can do to help and if it is only a boo-boo, I have the cold packs, dressings or splints to deal with those as well. I will lift other people's kids off the store display and chastise them if they are being a nuisance. That includes teenagers in groups. I always stop and buy something from kids who set up a stand on their own, even if I don't want any Kool-aid, lemonade or cookies because that's what I think a good neighbor does. (This rule does not apply to parent set up tables outside of stores to sell mass market items.) I will spend time trying to catch a roving dog, even if I am in a suit and its raining out. I take pictures of lost animal posters in the neighborhood, just in case I find what they are looking for.

Not only am I that guy who would do those things, I have done all those things on more than one occasion.

I go on patrol of my neighborhood twice a day and have called the police, caused people to run when I did my looking, got explanations from people who knew what they were doing was odd and had a couple of verbal run in's with ne'er-do-wells who seemed to think better of it when the phone came out as well as a laugh or two when I realize I was wrong. Now, I don't carry a concealed firearm as my state is rather restrictive on such things—but I would if I could. (If I did, I'd go to the range at least twice as much as I do now.) Sure, I have a little false bravado on my patrols from having two large pit-mixes with muscles on muscles with a combined weight of about 150 to 160 who stay about six feet away from me at all times. But, while scary looking, I suspect the only real help they would be in a true confrontation would be to give me kisses after I had my hat handed to me by some youngster. While I might have a trick or two up my sleeve that would require the youngster to be quite serious or find they might have underestimated the power of old age and treachery, they are simply tricks. A determined assailant would win.

What is suspicious? I don't know how to describe it. But, through the years, I've probably walked the non-gated neighborhood of about 800 homes 2000 hours along with driving to and from work, the market, church or any of a number of places. I know what it looks like and what the people look like and what their cars look like and what they do in their front yards and how they move between yards and...well and any of a number of things my brain has picked up on but has not notified me of as yet. I haven't seen everyone who lives there or all of their guests or all that they do, but I certainly have a sense of what is odd or suspicious. I bet you do for your neighborhood too. Some of my subconscious learning may be enhanced by the fact I am always alert when outside. I am always looking around, seeing, noticing.

While I have no idea of the true facts in the Zimmerman case, I know some have complained about him doing some things in regards to what he thought was suspicious behavior. That scares me a bit. It scares me more than a bit some want to criminalize behaviors I do all the time because of the independent actions of another party. Things I do because that's what I think I should do. I call it being a good neighbor. Some others here seem to call it something else.
Tranq, I think that the difference between you and Zimmerman is that you would have a bit more common sense...and a bit more sense of self-preservation. If you called the police and the dispatcher told you to stay in your car, I am pretty darned certain that you would have stayed in your car UNLESS someone else was going to get hurt if you didn't.

Not to the same extent as you, but I have also been "that gal". I have done many of the same things that you have done without the patrolling the neighborhood bit. However, I am careful. I make sure that I am in a position to continue observation, without putting myself at risk. Yes, if I had a gun and I thought that my life or someone else's life was at risk I would have no hesitation about shooting. However, again, I would be careful.

I think that Zimmerman got caught up in the "hype"...and maybe if his getting caught up in the "hype" and dealing with the aftermath causes other neighborhood watch people to be more careful and cautious, then maybe a lesson will have been learned that was important.

However it scares me to think that possibly, with some people, that the opposite lesson will be learned.
 
Tranq, I think that the difference between you and Zimmerman is that you would have a bit more common sense...and a bit more sense of self-preservation. If you called the police and the dispatcher told you to stay in your car, I am pretty darned certain that you would have stayed in your car UNLESS someone else was going to get hurt if you didn't.

Not to the same extent as you, but I have also been "that gal". I have done many of the same things that you have done without the patrolling the neighborhood bit. However, I am careful. I make sure that I am in a position to continue observation, without putting myself at risk. Yes, if I had a gun and I thought that my life or someone else's life was at risk I would have no hesitation about shooting. However, again, I would be careful.

I think that Zimmerman got caught up in the "hype"...and maybe if his getting caught up in the "hype" and dealing with the aftermath causes other neighborhood watch people to be more careful and cautious, then maybe a lesson will have been learned that was important.

However it scares me to think that possibly, with some people, that the opposite lesson will be learned.
Oh come on? Zimmerman is smarter than that, a lot smarter than any of you all give him credit for. He knew when he pulled that gun and shot that he was shooting to kill he aimed right for the heart and in that method this wanna be cop knew the law enough to know that dead men do not tell tales. If he wounded this guy and T was able to testify against him then he is locked up. Heck in my CCW class they teach us that if you pull a gun on someone aim to kill do not wound. I am sure Z knew this, if you need a reference then see the lady locked up for using stand your ground in Florida cause she missed her abusive husband and his testimony sent her up for aggravated assault. This is just one of the reasons I think Z knew what he was doing and had it laid out as he drew the weapon.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Oh come on? Zimmerman is smarter than that, a lot smarter than any of you all give him credit for. He knew when he pulled that gun and shot that he was shooting to kill he aimed right for the heart and in that method this wanna be cop knew the law enough to know that dead men do not tell tales. If he wounded this guy and T was able to testify against him then he is locked up. Heck in my CCW class they teach us that if you pull a gun on someone aim to kill do not wound. I am sure Z knew this, if you need a reference then see the lady locked up for using stand your ground in Florida cause she missed her abusive husband and his testimony sent her up for aggravated assault. This is just one of the reasons I think Z knew what he was doing and had it laid out as he drew the weapon.
For the first time in the years I have been here, I call a poster a liar. I understand the desire to make a point, but, being disingenuous on an issue of import does not add to the discussion.

Please provide a cite about the choice to kill rather than center of mass. From all my experience, the lesson is to hit the middle of the most. Lots of different people in lots of different ways to the point of that being the way it is taught.

Who said differently? When?

Don't give some rubbish, give proof.
 
For the first time in the years I have been here, I call a poster a liar. I understand the desire to make a point, but, being disingenuous on an issue of import does not add to the discussion.

Please provide a cite about the choice to kill rather than center of mass. From all my experience, the lesson is to hit the middle of the most. Lots of different people in lots of different ways to the point of that being the way it is taught.

Who said differently? When?

Don't give some rubbish, give proof.
My NRA instructor who signed off on my state CCW, that is who. I did not record the conversation but when Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired his intention was to kill this person. If you think it was not then you would be wrong. Remember Zimmerman knew the law, knew police procedures, and while I am not 100 percent certain his CCW instructed him that if he shot his gun shoot to kill. I would say it would be safe to say that is a fact. You may feel personally attached to this kind of situation but again RACE or any type of RACE card played absolutely zero in play in this. If you want to call me a liar fine, go get some NRA certifications and you learn the laws and they are pretty much the same from state to state. It comes down to this, if someone is endangering someone and I pull my gun and do not use it then that is assault with a deadly weapon; however, if someone pulls a knife on me and comes at me and I shot that person in the head then that is justifiable defense.

Understand?
 
Oh come on? Zimmerman is smarter than that, a lot smarter than any of you all give him credit for. He knew when he pulled that gun and shot that he was shooting to kill he aimed right for the heart and in that method this wanna be cop knew the law enough to know that dead men do not tell tales. If he wounded this guy and T was able to testify against him then he is locked up. Heck in my CCW class they teach us that if you pull a gun on someone aim to kill do not wound. I am sure Z knew this, if you need a reference then see the lady locked up for using stand your ground in Florida cause she missed her abusive husband and his testimony sent her up for aggravated assault. This is just one of the reasons I think Z knew what he was doing and had it laid out as he drew the weapon.
My cwp class taught me to shoot to stop not kill. However you cant be sued by a corpse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top