You mean for you.

 

You deny that a Goldman was killed along with Brown? Or deny that Martin was weaponless?

 

My point exactly.

 

It's okay to say, 'we know OJ did it' but it's a problem to say, 'we know Zimmerman did it'.

 

Just because the lawyer exonerated a client doesn't mean the client didn't commit the crime. Does it?

 

Zimmerman hasn't been through a trial yet. OJ has. We know all the evidence related to the OJ case. We know what the media has told us regarding Zimmerman.

Nope, he put what was factual. Martin didn't have a weapon.

 

You left that part out because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

Don't have an agenda and didn't jump to conclusions like others on this board and then visits to Florida by the Revs Sharpton and Jackson, and then the family Martin family just wanted an apology, and now Zimmerman apologizes and that is not good enough or sincere. What a farce....

Could you point out the specific evidence supporting your conclusion that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin?

 

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yes

Dispatcher: OK We don't need you to do that.

Somehow they still come into contact, away from the spot where Zimmerman was at the time of that call. His previous attorneys wouldn't attempt to explain it.

 

Zimmerman's black friend and his white friend both said in these exact words: "All he had to do was say I am visiting my father." Which clearly shows Zimmerman accosted him. Trayvon does not have to answer to him, so he "stood his ground."

Apparently, stuff I say about this clearly grinds your gears. Why don't you just accept the fact that we will just agree to disagree. I am not going to keep responding to your replies when I have what I wanted: an arrest of the killer. The point iI've always said is that had they listened to the lead detective and charged Zimmerman the night of the killing, the rest of the world never hears the name Trayvon.

You deny that a Goldman was killed along with Brown? Or deny that Martin was weaponless?

 

Have no clue what you mean here. Goldman nor Martin had a weapon to the best of my knowledge. They both are dead. No killer has been convicted in the death of Goldman. The man who killed Martin is out on bond awaiting trial.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yes

Dispatcher: OK We don't need you to do that.

Somehow they still come into contact, away from the spot where Zimmerman was at the time of that call. His previous attorneys wouldn't attempt to explain it.

 

Zimmerman's black friend and his white friend both said in these exact words: "All he had to do was say I am visiting my father." Which clearly shows Zimmerman accosted him. Trayvon does not have to answer to him, so he "stood his ground."

Apparently, stuff I say about this clearly grinds your gears. Why don't you just accept the fact that we will just agree to disagree. I am not going to keep responding to your replies when I have what I wanted: an arrest of the killer. The point iI've always said is that had they listened to the lead detective and charged Zimmerman the night of the killing, the rest of the world never hears the name Trayvon.

 

Don't agree with this at all. Once the Revs felt it had some racial legs...let's get down to Florida....

If I shot someone, even in self-defense, I would feel remorse over someone losing his/her life. If that someone was a teenager, I'd feel even worse. Wouldn't you?

 

I have to think that a normal human being, after an event like this one, would be thinking about the incident over and over again; asking him or herself "what could I have done differently so this teenager didn't lose his life? Should I have stayed in my vehicle? Should I....?" While I think it's very reasonable for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle to follow and keep track of Martin until the police arrived (as I think I'd have done the same thing), I also think it's very reasonable to think that Zimmerman is now regretting (particularly since a teenager is now dead) getting out of his vehicle. Hence the age of Martin having a bearing on Zimmerman's apology. I might still feel justified in shooting a person (even a teenager) to save my life, but I'd be seriously asking myself if stopping another burglary was worth a person losing his life, even moreso when that person was a teenager. Hence the bearing of Martin's age on Zimmerman's apology. But perhaps you are right. I don't know.

 

If there is other evidence indicating that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, I'd think his apology could support such evidence.

 

You read the transcript. Based on what was said by Zimmerman (particularly the part where he's discussing where he is and where the police should meet up with him), it doesn't indicate to me that he intended to take the law into his own hands and try to apprehend Martin himself. Does it to you? If I intended to shoot someone when I got out of my vehicle, would I call the police to begin with? Would I tell the police my location? Would I make a point of telling the dispatcher a location where the police could meet up with me?

 

Unlike 85, I read nothing in the transcript indicating that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with the intent to confront Martin or to shoot him. Perhaps others feel differently. Do you and if so, why?[/QUOTE]

You assume that everything Zimmerman was telling the police on the 9-1-1 calls was factual. I 'm calling 9-1-1 right now on you and telling them that you look suspsicious and I can't tell what your deal is. He could've been setting his scene. Take a deepper look and remember this guys laways wanted to be a cop. Man I swear for those who keep supporting Zimmerman, you are not supporting conceal/carry and

constitutional laws. You are supporting a murderer. Why can't you people see that he stalked Trayvon. I wasn't there, neither were you but all evidence suggests that he stalked the boy. A reaosnable person would allow police to do their job after calling 9-1-1. Not follow a pedestrian. Trayvon had not committed no crime and did nto fit any descriptions and Zimmerman was not a cop - so please also remember that Trayvon was not only a high schooler, but also a pedestrian. Two people much more familair with the case than you and I will ever be, has decided it was best to chrage Zimmerman with a felony. The original lead detetctive wanted manslaughter; and now the special prosecutor wants a second degree murder. Why, because Zimmermann's story doesn't add up and he acted very unreasonable.

Zimmerman hasn't been through a trial yet. OJ has. We know all the evidence related to the OJ case. We know what the media has told us regarding Zimmerman.

 

 

Then we know OJ didn't kill Nichole Brown or Ron Goldman and the jury made the right call.

 

Then we know OJ didn't kill Nichole Brown or Ron Goldman and the jury made the right call.

 

No what we know is that is what the jury decided. That doesn't mean we know it as fact.

 

Just like even if George goes through a trial and is found not guilty we won't know for sure if that is fact. But we should have more evidence by then that you and I can access.

Have no clue what you mean here. Goldman nor Martin had a weapon to the best of my knowledge. They both are dead. No killer has been convicted in the death of Goldman. The man who killed Martin is out on bond awaiting trial.

 

We know Zimmerman killed Martin for sure. Nobody is questioning that. I would say a big difference between a weaponless woman in the O.J. situation, at her home no less, and two guys fighting in the street. Nobody has ever said Zimmerman just drove by and killed Martin.

 

This is what you said. All Purple Pride added was that 1) a man (Goldman) was killed along with the woman (Brown) and 2) that Martin was weaponless.

 

I don't think that those things are up for debate.

Edited April 26, 201214 yr by True blue (and gold)

No what we know is that is what the jury decided. That doesn't mean we know it as fact.

 

Just like even if George goes through a trial and is found not guilty we won't know for sure if that is fact. But we should have more evidence by then that you and I can access.

 

That doesn't mean we'll agree on what we believe happened that cold, rainy night in February. Unless someone can show me some hardcore video proof that exonerates Zimmerman I am going to believe he is guilty as sin. Just like a large majority of people believe OJ killed Nichole and Ron even though the evidence was enough for a jury to acquit him.

The Revs? Hmmm. I'm not going to even say what I am thinking. But see, you are so racist that you can't see the forest from the trees. If Zimmerman gets charged on the night of, there is no national story. It gets ran on the 11 p.m. news; 5 am news and noon news - in ORLANDO ONLY. It doesn't become a national story. And "The REVs" only got involved when the family called. Granted, Al Sharpton broke the story nationally on his MSNBC show, but once again, having dated for newspaper reporter for several years, I have a modest understanding of how news breaks. This is her telling me to let you know that if Zimmerman had been arrested on the night of the killing, there is a 99.99 percent chance that this story doesn't sniff national attention. There is no news there other than an unarmed teenager wa shot and the killer was apprehended. It's a local story at that point. But no arrest, having the history of racial tensions in Florida, muchless that community made it a national issue.

 

So now you say I am racist. Okay. Do you think the family called Al or Al called the family? And who did this benefit? And what was Reverend Sharpton's cause?

 

As for calling them the Rev's-yes I do call them that as that is what they are and how they want to be addressed as best I know. If they don't and I called them Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton would they or you be offended that I did not call them Reverend? You can't have it both ways. I believe these two clergymen are nothing more than self promoting sons of a guns that do nothing to help race relations at all. They have the opposite effect, because some blacks feel inclined to support them and some whites believe they are race baiters and opportunists. Do they help the cause or provide a wider chasm?

85, I'd be careful about accusing people of being racist. That's a charge that should ONLY be levied when you have 128% proof.

 

I'd also be careful about challenging LN with "you believe everything Zimmerman told the police" was factual. He hasn't claimed that. If we simply go by what we read/hear/think we'd never need the jury system. You then compound it by throwing in your interpretation of what the real facts are and presenting them as the only truth. We don't know the real facts.

 

We need your perspective but you can't get a thread off track with accusations and with not responding to what was truly said.

If I shot someone, even in self-defense, I would feel remorse over someone losing his/her life. If that someone was a teenager, I'd feel even worse. Wouldn't you?

 

I have to think that a normal human being, after an event like this one, would be thinking about the incident over and over again; asking him or herself "what could I have done differently so this teenager didn't lose his life? Should I have stayed in my vehicle? Should I....?" While I think it's very reasonable for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle to follow and keep track of Martin until the police arrived (as I think I'd have done the same thing), I also think it's very reasonable to think that Zimmerman is now regretting (particularly since a teenager is now dead) getting out of his vehicle. Hence the age of Martin having a bearing on Zimmerman's apology. I might still feel justified in shooting a person (even a teenager) to save my life, but I'd be seriously asking myself if stopping another burglary was worth a person losing his life, even moreso when that person was a teenager. Hence the bearing of Martin's age on Zimmerman's apology. But perhaps you are right. I don't know.

 

If there is other evidence indicating that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, I'd think his apology could support such evidence.

 

You read the transcript. Based on what was said by Zimmerman (particularly the part where he's discussing where he is and where the police should meet up with him), it doesn't indicate to me that he intended to take the law into his own hands and try to apprehend Martin himself. Does it to you? If I intended to shoot someone when I got out of my vehicle, would I call the police to begin with? Would I tell the police my location? Would I make a point of telling the dispatcher a location where the police could meet up with me?

 

Unlike 85, I read nothing in the transcript indicating that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with the intent to confront Martin or to shoot him. Perhaps others feel differently. Do you and if so, why?[/QUOTE]

You assume that everything Zimmerman was telling the police on the 9-1-1 calls was factual. I 'm calling 9-1-1 right now on you and telling them that you look suspsicious and I can't tell what your deal is. He could've been setting his scene. Take a deepper look and remember this guys laways wanted to be a cop. Man I swear for those who keep supporting Zimmerman, you are not supporting conceal/carry and

constitutional laws. You are supporting a murderer. Why can't you people see that he stalked Trayvon. I wasn't there, neither were you but all evidence suggests that he stalked the boy. A reaosnable person would allow police to do their job after calling 9-1-1. Not follow a pedestrian. Trayvon had not committed no crime and did nto fit any descriptions and Zimmerman was not a cop - so please also remember that Trayvon was not only a high schooler, but also a pedestrian. Two people much more familair with the case than you and I will ever be, has decided it was best to chrage Zimmerman with a felony. The original lead detetctive wanted manslaughter; and now the special prosecutor wants a second degree murder. Why, because Zimmermann's story doesn't add up and he acted very unreasonable.

 

Incorrect on many levels.

 

First as I have stated many, many times, I have not made a conclusion whether Zimmerman did or did not murder Martin. My comments have focused strictly on whether the little evidence we actually know of is sufficient to convict Zimmerman of murder. I don't think there is, but as I have pointed out the special prosecutor may have discovered additional evidence.

 

If you care to read my prior posts, I actually stated that I hope the special has additional evidence and that Zimmerman is convicted. That sound like supporting a murderer, to you?

 

I do not discount the possibility that Zimmerman may have/could have been setting the scene. But there is going to have to be some solid, believable evidence supporting that theory.

 

I have not supported Zimmerman one dang bit. My comments have been focused on the charge and whether the information known is sufficient to convict.

 

However, there are plenty of people out there (you included) commenting on the case with no more knowledge than I, that have already convicted Zimmerman in their minds.

 

I do put stock in what the special prosecutor feels about the evidence; just like I put stock in what the initial prosecutor felt about the evidence. I do not put much stock in what the detective felt. No disrespect to police officers, but it's not their job to determine if there is evidence to charge. They aren't lawyers; they are police officers.

 

And if I may respond to a comment you made to me in a prior post: no you don't "grind my gears". If you are trying to do so, it's not working. I do find your perspective and opinion on this matter troubling and disappointing, but does it grind my gears? Again, no. I really don't value your opinion high enough to let our difference of opinion bother me.

Here's what I have to wrap my head around.

 

What if both are true? What if Martin felt like he was physically being threatened by someone who followed him in a truck then got out of his truck and was walking toward him? What if Martin felt like Zimmerman was going to jump him and decided to get the upper hand first?

 

At the same time, what if Zimmerman's intentions were never to shoot Martin. Instead, he did approach him to "just" see what he was up to and once Martin (who in my imagined possible scenario truly felt threatened enough to go on the offensive) was getting the better of him felt like his life was in danger and shot the teenager?

 

To me, even in this scenario, Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's (wrongful) death.

 

I don't discount the possibility that Zimmerman following Martin may have caused Martin to feel threatened. I think it's very plausible and believable that Martin would have been threatened by Zimmerman following. I believe the phone call Martin had with his friend supports the contention that Martin was worried about the person following him. Heck, I'd be worried if I thought someone was following me.

 

This issue in my mind would be: what actions did Martin take as a result of being followed and assumedly feeling threatened? Surely the mere act of following someone does not give the person being followed (even if such person felt threatened) the right to attack the follower does it? Did Zimmerman do more than just follow Martin? Did he confront Martin? Did Martin confront Zimmerman and demand to know why he was being followed? Did Martin even ask Zimmerman why he was following him, or rather did he decide to jump Zimmerman and get the upper hand first without even asking Zimmerman why he was following him?

 

These are all questions to which we'll probably never receive answers with 100% reliability. We'll only get Zimmerman's answer unless there are some credibile eyewitnesses to the actual moment of confrontation. Why again is why I think it will be extremely difficult to convict Zimmerman of murder.

 

Now if we are going to set aside the legal/criminal standard aspect of this situation and talk about whether Zimmerman's decision to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin started a chain of events that resulted in the tragic death of Martin, that's something completely different. Clearly it did.