JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Yes Zimmerman did follow Martin - it is my contention that by following him that Zimmerman initated the confrontation. Zimmemrman could have prevented this mess by simply reporting what he saw to the police - instead he created the problem. Suspicion is not enough a justifiable reason to cause a controntation.

James Ruby
 
Yes Zimmerman did follow Martin - it is my contention that by following him that Zimmerman initated the confrontation. Zimmemrman could have prevented this mess by simply reporting what he saw to the police - instead he created the problem. Suspicion is not enough a justifiable reason to cause a controntation.

James Ruby
It would be my contention that suspicion is sufficient reason to cause a confrontation. Not an assault, certainly not sufficient to initiate a shooting, but if someone is following you and you suspect they are going to 'jump you' would it not be reasonable to cause a confrontation? Someone on this board claimed this just a few posts back... (Post #99)

It remains that GZ acted like an idiot, but not a criminal. (My opinion) This does not imply I think GZ was right, good, righteous, intelligent, or wise in any of his actions. Just not guilty of murder. His actions do not predictably result in a death, a yelling match certainly, but not a shooting.

The prosecution for Murder 2 seems politically motivated, if the state had gone for a lesser charge then his actions would fit the charge better. GZ followed TM with a phone in his hand not his pistol. GZ broke off the tail when requested by police dispatcher (allegedly). That is the end of the 'confrontation', it does not establish a reasonable basis for an assault and battery by TM. The battery of GZ by TM does seem to establish a reasonable basis for a self-defense response. Unless compelling evidence arises that refutes this rudimentary timeline, it looks like GZ should walk. All that occured before GZ started tailing TM is superfluous, neither person broke any laws, no threats, just 'suspicious behaviour'.
When this thread started, I had not solidified an opinion. But unless those who think GZ guilty have been holding back some surprise facts, I must conclude that there is just not sufficient evidence to convict GZ of murder.
 
Okay, like a particularly large patch of dandruff, I can't stop picking.....

Umm, what about witness 9? The cousin of gz who anonymously called the police a few days after? Was interviewed and declared that the zimmerman family "only like black people when they act white"

To say that because there was a cut and paste job of audio by nbc, therefore zimmerman is not racist...... Kind of laughable. What you can say is nbc mislead people and that's f***&&d.

Racism is a complicated thing. I don't care that he's hispanic, or his grandfather (i think, correct me if i'm wrong) may be black.

I understand that racism is not against the law, and personally I could give a flying f&&& about personal racism. It's when that s*** gets institutionalized that it bugs me. Me, I'm racist against a particular ethnicity. It has to do with real contact and experiences. Do I want laws made to stop or harass these people? No. Do I understand that I might be being the dick when we talk? Yes. I'm allright with that. Dear nwfa members, and internet commentators everywhere..... Just be aware and okay with your own shortcomings. It makes it much easier to have a conversation. And if someone points one out to you, pause and think if it might be true.

Attacking and calling people or procedures does not make a good argument.
You need to make an argument based on the facts you have, not by trashing people or news organizations. And another thing, that someone else brought up here. Why are people going out of their way, bending over backwards for gz? I mean seriously, this isn't a "clear cut" someone is getting screwed over for defending themselves case. The dude could've handled it way different. And the fact that he had a busted nose, only means someone put up a fight. That doesn't mean gz was attacked.
Just another question, LOSD, do you practice law? In a court room setting?
Just wondering.
 
cj,

I will agree with you that murder 2 will be hard to prove, and it was politically motivated.

I think it's the appropriate charge (my opinion) but manslaughter would be easier to prove.

I think that's where they should've gone with it.
 
I will be the first to admit I could be wrong here - I am trying to understand better but all information, "ALL" information is being biased by the entity that provided it. I have gathered my opinion based on the infomation I beleive to be true. I do not care about color - I care about wether a person has the right to walk through a neigbhor hood with out being deemed suspicous and accosted. All Information I hear from Zimmerman is suspect as it is in his best interest and there is no other person to refute it - namely Treyvon Martin - his side is never going to be heard. Zimmerman has tried to play enough games during this period of time that I simply dont trust what he has to say.

I know this - that Zimmerman was armed and at minimum confronted Martin and could have prevented this whole mess if he had simply stayed in his vehicle and reported what he saw without pursuing Martin.

What I believe and my opinon arent worth much to any one else and plays no part in the court trial. To me it is one of those things that I simply cannot find any justifiable reason why a person that was merely acting suspicious was confronted and lost his life over it and the perpetrator will go free.

James Ruby
 
I know this - that Zimmerman was armed and at minimum confronted Martin and could have prevented this whole mess if he had simply stayed in his vehicle and reported what he saw without pursuing Martin.

What I believe and my opinon arent worth much to any one else and plays no part in the court trial. To me it is one of those things that I simply cannot find any justifiable reason why a person that was merely acting suspicious was confronted and lost his life over it and the perpetrator will go free.

James Ruby

The other opinion is that there is nothing against the law for a citizen to follow someone or to ask what he's doing. What you're proposing seems to suggest, that if you think someone is following you, it's OK to pounce on them and beat their head into the ground. There had been recent robberies in the neighborhood so that may have prompted a questioning attitude on the part of Zimmerman.

Just trying to point out the differences in opinion. One side says that a police officer ordered Zimmerman to stop following Martin, and another side says that a 911 dispatcher said "you don't need to do that", or something along those lines.

Last Friday night, there was a silver mini-van stopped in front on my house at 2:30 in the morning. I don't know if they were looking at the boat, the truck, or what they were doing. My next door neighbor had just gotten home from work and began to approach the van. They took off and he jumped in his pickup to follow them. They kept running down side streets at a high rate of speed so he quit following them. Using the logic that seems to be coming from one side of the argument, that would mean that my neighbor deserved to be beaten. If the guys in the van had skittles, would they then be justified in beating up someone following or watching them?

As far as extenuating circumstances in my case, we've had gas stolen out of vehicles, vehicle break ins, and a shooting nearby in the last couple of weeks. I don't think it's too far out to question people in the neighborhood under those circumstances.

We don't know all the facts in the Martin/Zimmerman case. It seems to be a leap on both sides to determine each parties mental state at the time, but it appears that will have a bearing on the legal outcome. That's why we have investigations and trials.
 
Ok first it's not illegal to follow anyone. GZ thought he was suspicious because there had been recent break ins and it was raining and TM was wondering around in the reason peering into people's houses. For me even if it's not raining if you're wondering around looking into people's houses that is suspicious. Second you can hear GZ get out of his truck to follow TM (NOT ILLEGAL) he was being asked by the dispatcher which entrance he was headed toward. You hear wind and GZ breathing harder but when the dispatcher asks if he is following him and he replies yes the dispatcher says we don't need you to do that, they don't tell him not to they just say they don't need him to follow but after that GZ says OK and you can hear his breathing slow and the wind not hit the speaker as much he clearly started to back off. Third there is no evidence suggesting GZ started the confrontation. He knew police were on their way so it would be stupid of him to do so as there would be potential that he was in the middle of a fight when cops got there. I think GZ is completely innocent even if manslaughter
 
I know this - that Zimmerman was armed and at minimum confronted Martin and could have prevented this whole mess if he had simply stayed in his vehicle and reported what he saw without pursuing Martin.

What I believe and my opinon arent worth much to any one else and plays no part in the court trial. To me it is one of those things that I simply cannot find any justifiable reason why a person that was merely acting suspicious was confronted and lost his life over it and the perpetrator will go free.

James Ruby
Cannot argue that first sentenance, just could add Martin could have prevented this whole mess by not walking past GZ or running away when GZ started following him. TM had no duty to do either of these things but it would have prevented his death. Arguably, if TM had not battered GZ to the ground, he would be alive today also.

The second line is not accurate, yet anyway. GZ has not been deemed the perpetrator. A Perp needs to initiate a crime, the trial is determining if a crime was commited and which crime that was. It could determine that an A&B by TM was the only crime and GZ's reaction was self defense. Contrarily, it could determine a murder was commited and GZ is guilty of that crime. If it is determined that GZ's behaviour was criminally intimidating, an assault charge in some jurisdictions, TM's behaviour could be reasonable and still clear GZ of murder conviction by reason of self-defense.

By going for the big kihauna, the State is risking everything and I don't see it paying off. It is almost like they want the show but don't want the conviction. That goes against what I know about lawyers, most live for the win and would never give up a case willingly.

The show continues.
 
Arguably, if TM had not battered GZ to the ground, he would be alive today also.

This is what I believe and if correct, the case should be dismissed. If Martin started the physical contact (kick,punch,push,slap) then Zimmerman had every right to fight back and later in the fight if he felt his life was in danger then he also had the right to use lethal force.

Let a cop follow a suspect. If the suspect makes physical contact (kick,punch,push,slap) with a cop, the cop has every right to use lethal force if needed.

Following someone is not a crime. Attacking someone is.

My opinion.
 
If someone is on my property and I go outside to see what they are doing and then the guy or guys start throwing punches at me do I have the right to shoot them if I fear for my life?

How about if I see someone looking into my neighbors windows? I go over to see whats happening. I am attacked, I fight back but the guy/s are beating me to death, Is it justified to shoot them?


If not the why have a CHL to begin with? Eah?
 
If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as do others - I however cannot go and pick a fight and harrass someone simply because they are suspicous. There is a big difference between comitting a crime and acting suspicous. You start following people and start questioning them when they are not doing anything wrong then yes you are being confrontational and confrontations do escalate. A LEO is a different story.

I would like to know how far away from the windows Martin was when he was looking into the windows and wether that can be proved besides what Zimmerman said. I have no reason to believe Zimmerman as again it is one sided and to his advantage.

James Ruby
 
If someone is on my property and I go outside to see what they are doing and then the guy or guys start throwing punches at me do I have the right to shoot them if I fear for my life?

How about if I see someone looking into my neighbors windows? I go over to see whats happening. I am attacked, I fight back but the guy/s are beating me to death, Is it justified to shoot them?


If not the why have a CHL to begin with? Eah?

I think that's a great question. You would think, that you had a right to defend yourself in that case. The arguments and disagreements seem to be about questioning people when you think a crime may be in the process of being committed. Some arguments suggest, that if you are carrying, your intent is to instigate a fight. Interesting how the question of looking away from what you think is wrong doing ,and the current NSA questions have something in common. Using that logic, those that think Snowden is a hero would also think Zimmerman is a hero for investigation a perceived wrong.

I don't know the answers, but the real questions seem to be more complex than just figuring out some of the facts.
 
If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as do others - I however cannot go and pick a fight and harrass someone simply because they are suspicous.
James Ruby

It appears as though, that is exactly the question - did Zimmerman pick a fight. If you're suggesting that Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes, he should be prosecuted. Harassing is a different issue and we're not sure what really transpired. Do I have a right to beat someone up if I feel that I'm harassed? And if I'm dumb enough to pick a fight with someone who has a gun, am I then the victim?
 
The question is who started the physical contact and did that individual feel that his life was in danger. Did Zimmerman start it or did Martin? I cannot tell you exactly what happend that night - can any one of you and prove it? Self defense is a premise I believe in and the fact is this would not have happened if Zimmerman had simply reported what he saw? Zimmerman was not a LEO but in my opinion he acted like one. To me unless they caght Martin creating a crime he was nothing more than a teenager that was cutting a cross someones yard when a want to be police officer decided he did not like it and took matters into his own hands.
Just my opinion.

I am interested to see what comes out of the trial.

James Ruby
 
Let's simplify this a bit. It seems those who think GZ is guilty believe he is because they believe he initiated the fight. Can someone please provide me with the factual evidence that shows he started the physical altercation? After all that is what is at stake he doesn't have to prove his innocence the state must prove his guilt.
 
So even if you initiate a fight(by following and questioning someone) and then the other guy carries the fight too far and is now trying to kill you, you cannot defend yourself accordingly? Just because you initiate a verbal fight does not mean you are trying to physically assault the other person does it? Playing devils advocate here. Verbal assault is way different than murder in my opinion. Was it stupid and pompous of Zimmerman, certainly but when it escalated to physical assault by Trevon that completely changed the game.
 
I think it would be wise that if you know that you are carrying that the last thing you should be doing is trying to instigate a fight - just my way of thinking. If you cant control your temperment you should probably not be carrying anyways.


James Ruby
 
I understand that completely James and agree wholeheartedly, I think G.Z. seen this guy and got caught up in the fact that there was alot of break ins happening and thought he had the bad guy. Stupid yes, but I do not think he intended it to become physical and when it did all hell broke loose. Big difference in a verbal fight and a physical fight.
 
Boy. When I first started reading this thread I had hoped it wouldn't degrade into an opinion-measuring contest. I guess I was wrong.

There seems to be two schools of thought here:
GZ is guilty and here's why... OR GZ is innocent and here's why...
The reality is GZ is on trial and like it or not, he should be considered innocent until proven guilty under the law.

Once the trial is over, what happens with all those who prejudged him in opposition to the actual verdict? Much like the first Rodney King trial, politics has lead to overcharging the suspect and will probably lead to a not guilty verdict on these charges. At least this time we won't have Mayor Bradley going on TV and claiming that "this injustice will not stand..." and shortly after that I was armed escorting people out of the combat zone in LA.

LoSD, thanks for the posts. I appreciate the effort and more than a 10 second sound bite.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top