Zimmerman trial

[+Paranoid Android]

The article I read went on to say that now whenever George has gone out, he has taken to wearing a bulletproof vest. Do you suppose he is afraid someone has profiled him and would be stupid enough to try and stalk him and shoot him? I wonder where he would ever get that idea. I might suppose it's from his fear that there may be other minds out there that work like his own.

Maybe it's because of the fact he's had death threats? As the old adage goes - paranoid is what you call people who think they have threats against their life, Zimmerman HAS threats against his life. In such a situation, wearing a bullet-proof vest would appear to be a sound tactical decision.

But once again it's being pegged in as negative light as possible - Zimmerman is afraid of his own shadow, just as a thief is paranoid of being stolen from, a stalker is paranoid of being stalked himself.

[Michelle]

Maybe it's because of the fact he's had death threats? As the old adage goes - paranoid is what you call people who think they have threats against their life, Zimmerman HAS threats against his life. In such a situation, wearing a bullet-proof vest would appear to be a sound tactical decision.

But once again it's being pegged in as negative light as possible - Zimmerman is afraid of his own shadow, just as a thief is paranoid of being stolen from, a stalker is paranoid of being stalked himself.

His defense team, family, friends, the jury and even someone whose phone number was published as Zimmerman's have all received death threats. And people say he is the vigilante.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Michelle

[+and-then]

Maybe it's because of the fact he's had death threats? As the old adage goes - paranoid is what you call people who think they have threats against their life, Zimmerman HAS threats against his life. In such a situation, wearing a bullet-proof vest would appear to be a sound tactical decision.

But once again it's being pegged in as negative light as possible - Zimmerman is afraid of his own shadow, just as a thief is paranoid of being stolen from, a stalker is paranoid of being stalked himself.

Sad thing is that if someone does kill him it would be a cause for celebration in certain communities -apparently including part of UM members. BTW, I read today where he was spotted near Sanford - helping to extricate a family of four from an overturned SUV.... yep, real mad dog killer that....

[No Censorship]

This whole case was a simple self defense case. period.

What is it that drove it to national attention the way it did? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson?

And why did the President need to weigh in with his personal opinion?

Why is Eric Holder personally involved?

Why is the Black Caucus involved? Why do we even have a Black Caucus? Dont we send these people to DC to represent us all equally?

What i am seeing here is one common theme - "It was a black kid and we are going to make some noise".

Civil rights in this nation has been going backwards ever since Obama took over.

All those people i mentioned above, what has their response been to the Brunswick Ga murder of a 13 month old baby by two blacks? they did the killing "Just for the fun of it" or how about the 12-year-old New Jersey girl, who had been missing and was later found dead stuffed inside a recycling container, killed by two blacks for a bicycle. The silence is deafening.

Yet find one black kid with a thug past and this is the one case they want to run into the ground. you would think with all the noise they are making that this kid was a prodigy with a world changing future, not some dope smoking thief posing with guns and a backpack of stolen merchandise found after getting shot at a time of day where he would have been in school had he not been suspended.

It's not only that. They ignored other cases in which the races were reversed. Two self-defense incidents took place in Florida, and the Black men were not convicted or imprisoned as law enforcement decided that they legally protected their lives from threats. The media avoided these encounters like the plague (assuming they weren't totally ignorant of them).

[Ryinrea]

It's not only that. They ignored other cases in which the races were reversed. Two self-defense incidents took place in Florida, and the Black men were not convicted or imprisoned as law enforcement decided that they legally protected their lives from threats. The media avoided these encounters like the plague (assuming they weren't totally ignorant of them).

You mean Merissa Alexander? She was convicted for 20 years she was black dude.

[Ryinrea]

From the linked article...

Grand Jury? What Grand Jury? The DA specifically avoided a Grand Jury (GJ) because the suspicion was that the GJ might throw the case out.

That is fine, but this Statement does not automatically cross over to GZs county, city and neighborhood. I bet if you were to try hard to pin this Police Sergent down, like in a court room, he'd admit that the "Rules" say not to follow vehicles.

Meh to each his own, I would also assume that would be both people and vehicles. Since one could be armed ie dangerous.

I thought all cases were taken to a grand jury first, in fact with grand jury you can get a conviction of a ham sandwich as my dad use too say a lot.

OFF too work

[Ryinrea]

Sad thing is that if someone does kill him it would be a cause for celebration in certain communities -apparently including part of UM members. BTW, I read today where he was spotted near Sanford - helping to extricate a family of four from an overturned SUV.... yep, real mad dog killer that....

That doesn't excuse him from; what he did which was he killed someone.

[Myles]

That doesn't excuse him from; what he did which was he killed someone.

In self defense. As confirmed by a jury.

[F3SS]

[+joc]

That doesn't excuse him from; what he did which was he killed someone.

Yeah...it kind of does.

[Regi]

Nope I didn't believe that part, when I realized the numbers are in the front of the the house on the mail boxes or the front curb. Thanks for pointing that out I'd forgotten that he was supposed to be look for address and street signs.

Ryinrea, I think you've forgotten because people don't want to acknowledge such things; people don't tend to allow facts and circumstances get in the way of what they choose, want or need to believe.

No, Zimmerman didn't get out to look for any street sign, and he never looked for any house numbers.

What that lie shows is that the confrontation is another lie because obviously, Zimmerman wouldn't have been walking back from getting something that he never went to get!

[Myles]

Ryinrea, I think you've forgotten because people don't want to acknowledge such things; people don't tend to allow facts and circumstances get in the way of what they choose, want or need to believe.

No, Zimmerman didn't get out to look for any street sign, and he never looked for any house numbers.

What that lie shows is that the confrontation is another lie because obviously, Zimmerman wouldn't have been walking back from getting something that he never went to get!

Again, that is speculation. I think it is possible that George got out with the intention of getting a street name.

[Ryinrea]

Ryinrea, I think you've forgotten because people don't want to acknowledge such things; people don't tend to allow facts and circumstances get in the way of what they choose, want or need to believe.

No, Zimmerman didn't get out to look for any street sign, and he never looked for any house numbers.

What that lie shows is that the confrontation is another lie because obviously, Zimmerman wouldn't have been walking back from getting something that he never went to get!

I just forgot the reason he gave for getting out of his car, but the confertion must have happened, since Martin ended up dead..

I do like facts Regi. Facts are my life, why do you think I sound like a broken record somewhat. xd

Joc no it doesn't make up for the life he stole.

[Ryinrea]

In self defense. As confirmed by a jury.

As confirmed by a jury, who inculded Juror B37 ie the profitering ass who got herself a book deal(thought it was droped). The one who should've never been on a jury. You call that a jury dude xd?

[Myles]

As confirmed by a jury, who inculded Juror B37 ie the profitering ass who got herself a book deal(thought it was droped). The one who should've never been on a jury. You call that a jury dude xd?

It took the other 5 as well. Some of which were black.

By the way, there isn't anything wrong with proffiting off of serving on this jury. While I don't think this lady is the brightest girl, I hardley think she forced the others to vote not guilty.

[Aaronsmom]

Vincent Di Maio comes to mind. He's not exactly a quack, to say the least.

No, not a quack. A knowledgable and credible expert. But I heard him confirm on the stand that he testified as an expert witness in the defense of Scott Peterson. Given that everybody but a few nutcases know that SP is guilty, it causes me to view VDM with skepticism. The impression this gives is that his "expertise" can be bought for the right price--and slanted accordingly to the client's benefit.

[Aaronsmom]

It took the other 5 as well. Some of which were black.

By the way, there isn't anything wrong with proffiting off of serving on this jury. While I don't think this lady is the brightest girl, I hardley think she forced the others to vote not guilty.

Correction on something: the jury did NOT include one Afr.Am. on it. Five jurors were Caucasian and one Hispanic. Actually, one person on a jury (or in any decision-making process) can often be very effective in swaying the thinking of others. It takes a forceful personality, which either impresses people greatly, or intimidated them. Either response can be sufficient to influence the person's thinking. I don't know a thing about the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper, but she strikes me as someone who could be a forceful personality.

[Regi]

I just forgot the reason he gave for getting out of his car, but the confertion must have happened, since Martin ended up dead..

My point was that the confrontation didn't occur as Zimmerman claimed it did, and it didn't occur where Zimmerman claimed it did.

There are other facts and circumstances which support my opinion.

1) Zimmerman lied again about the operator ever asking him for an address, or an exact location. The operator did neither. (Granted, he shows an overactive imagination, so maybe he imagined such things, but it's highly doubtful because it's also part how he of attempts to convince.)

2) Zimmerman never once indicated to the operator that he was ever looking for an address, and ultimately, he never gave one. (Those points alone are inexplicable and entirely illogical.)

3) Zimmerman told Singleton that he was still on the phone as he was walking back; he told Serino that he'd ended the call and then immediately began to walk back. Both scenarios are impossible and the phone record proves it.

4) Zimmerman told Singleton that Martin was coming toward him ("I saw him coming toward me and I went to grab my phone") and that's why he was going to call 9-1-1; he told Serino that Martin was at distance when he looked down to search for his phone and that Martin was suddenly right there in front of him.

5) Zimmerman told Singleton that he fell backwards to the ground; he told Serino that he stumbled forward several steps as he pushed Martin away. (Still, several steps wouldn't place them the 30+ feet from the "T", and Zimmerman, himself, appeared to take notice of that during the re-enactment.)

6) Zimmerman told Singleton that he was holding his flashlight when the confrontation occurred; he'd answered that the flashlight didn't work, so he was referring to the flashlight which was found near and to the southeast of Martin's body. I believe that the location of that flashlight indicates that that's where a struggle- A STRUGGLE- first occurred, as Martin's ear plugs and cell phone were also found in that same location.

I think Zimmerman slipped up when he described to Singleton about "walking back toward him."

He also said "I guess he was upset that I called police."

In another interview, Zimmerman claimed that it was an investigator who'd suggested to that notion to him, but Zimmerman had never spoken to an investigator before he'd spoken to Singleton.

Dear, I'm sure I've probably left something out here and there...I'm somewhat preoccupied at the moment, but never mind that about Zimmerman getting out to find a sign or house numbers or whatever...he also doesn't want us to believe that Martin was ever in fear. He told Hannity that he knew Martin wasn't in fear because Martin wasn't actually running; no, no. Martin was more like "skipping".

He wasn't following Martin; he was just- you know- going in the same direction.

Yeah...never mind the nasty weather... never mind remaining in the vehicle and simply driving over to that other street. And despite that house numbers are lit, one still needs to carry a flashlight!

Edited July 23, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

Correction on something: the jury did NOT include one Afr.Am. on it. Five jurors were Caucasian and one Hispanic. Actually, one person on a jury (or in any decision-making process) can often be very effective in swaying the thinking of others. It takes a forceful personality, which either impresses people greatly, or intimidated them. Either response can be sufficient to influence the person's thinking. I don't know a thing about the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper, but she strikes me as someone who could be a forceful personality.

Oh, heck. Six other people could have come to another decision.

I want to add that I'm still raising a brow at that prosecution, but I believe Zimmerman still could have been convicted because regardless of the presentation of the evidence, the evidence was still there.

Edited July 23, 2013 by regi

[Ryinrea]

No, not a quack. A knowledgable and credible expert. But I heard him confirm on the stand that he testified as an expert witness in the defense of Scott Peterson. Given that everybody but a few nutcases know that SP is guilty, it causes me to view VDM with skepticism. The impression this gives is that his "expertise" can be bought for the right price--and slanted accordingly to the client's benefit.

Arronmom's I tend agree thier were many things I found odd about his testinmony. It felt like he was mixing opinions with a little bit of evidence. Which should never be done in forencis he normaly does mix it with $$$ signs.

[Quaentum]

My point was that the confrontation didn't occur as Zimmerman claimed it did, and it didn't occur where Zimmerman claimed it did.

There are other facts and circumstances which support my opinion.

1) Zimmerman lied again about the operator ever asking him for an address, or an exact location. The operator did neither. (Granted, he shows an overactive imagination, so maybe he imagined such things, but it's highly doubtful because it's also part how he of attempts to convince.)

I agree with most of what you have written but in the phone call the dispatcher does say "What address are you parked in front of?"

The problem is you can't trust what Zimmerman says mainly due to embellishments and the changes to his story.

In his written report the night of the incident he says that Martin came back and circled his truck but during the phone call, when he is telling the dispatcher everything he sees he never indicates anything like that happened.

In the written report he says he is backing up and based on the reenactment, that would have put him along the walk closer to his vehicle. In the reenactment he is stumbling in the direction Martins body was found but he would have been nowhere near the body as you pointed out. Also in the reenactment he indicates that he is moving parallel to the sidewalk in the grass with Martin behind him and he fell or was pushed. If true he would have ended up face first.

[Sakari]

In 2009, a man was asleep on his couch when he heard noises outside. He grabbed his gun, told his girlfriend to call 911, then went outside. Once there, he confronted three youths who were attempting to break into a neighbor’s vehicle.

His desire was to merely detain the three. He specifically stated it was not his intent to shoot anyone. As he approached the three, he could see that the dome light of the vehicle was on and at least one person was inside rummaging around.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/what-do-george-zimmerman-and-roderick-scott-have-in-common/#ixzz2ZtAM18h7

[Ryinrea]

It took the other 5 as well. Some of which were black.

By the way, there isn't anything wrong with proffiting off of serving on this jury. While I don't think this lady is the brightest girl, I hardley think she forced the others to vote not guilty.

So you find nothing wrong with a juror profiting from her duty as a citzen? What gives you a better profit a guilty on a case or a not guilty verdict on a convertial case?

[Michelle]

So you find nothing wrong with a juror profiting from her duty as a citzen? What gives you a better profit a guilty on a case or a not guilty verdict on a convertial case?

One of the OJ jurors wrote a book so I don't think it matters much.

[Myles]

Correction on something: the jury did NOT include one Afr.Am. on it. Five jurors were Caucasian and one Hispanic. Actually, one person on a jury (or in any decision-making process) can often be very effective in swaying the thinking of others. It takes a forceful personality, which either impresses people greatly, or intimidated them. Either response can be sufficient to influence the person's thinking. I don't know a thing about the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper, but she strikes me as someone who could be a forceful personality.

My bad, I just googled it and got wrong info.

I didn't see B37 as being very effective at swaying others at all. I think all 6 seen the evidence presented and voted accordingly.