TexasCHLforum.com

Valor wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: OK... instead of calling a cop, he stayed on the phone with his girlfriend and told her some cracka was following him and he was about to beat him down and steal his wallet. Better? He probably told her he might be able to buy a crack rock with his new found wealth. The kid was a punk ghetto thug! You want to pretend he was having a prayer meeting with that girl?

I'll buy that if you will buy into Zimmerman being a creepy "cracka" that was out to ensure by all means another "thug" would not get away with terrorizing his neighborhood. Keep in mind, turns out Martin was an invited guess of the property with no criminal record. What factual proof you have that Martin was a thug?

Actually, he was sent there as an alternative to charges being filed, for posession of burglary tools and leaving graffiti.

clarionite wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:You know I find it interesting, the number of blacks at my work who think GZ should be acquitted vs. the number of non-blacks who thinks he's guilty.

I've noticed at my office, most of those that are black feel Zimmerman should be acquitted (all of them that I know of); however, they're all security guards, mostly former LEO and/or military.
I've finally decided that this whole thing mostly boils down to a cultural differnce. Some cultures feel that Zimmerman disrespecting Martin (by following him) justified a beatdown. Those that feel that way also seem to feel Zimmerman is guilty. Those that realize LEGALLY Martin had no right to attack seem to feel Zimmerman is innocent (of a crime).

BINGO! That's what I've been saying. Its about those who are immersed in the thug "culture", who are wannabes of the thug culture, or who believe that to be an acceptable lifestyle, for whatever reason. I don't happen to fit into any of those categories.

I have debated this case in depth with a black leo...he is adamant this case is about race, GZ profiled the deceased and that it is murder. He did have one point that I agreed on. If I was being followed I too would most likely confront the person following me.

Would you assault that person and slam his head into the sidewalk?

I would and have confronted people I thought were watching/following me. Once was at a dance club, turns out he was a bouncer. No problem, he said he was just keeping an eye on me because if I did get out of hand it would take 3-4 of them to confront me. We laughed and chatted for a little while. I didn't punch him in the nose for it.

Never said I would. This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

texanjoker wrote: Never said I would. This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

Sounds like you've got reasonable doubt to me -- you'd have to find him not-guilty.

By the way. Suppose it happened just the way you describe, and Z did follow and perhaps even confront M. Assuming the M threw the first punch, and then proceeded to "hand his rear end to him", did Z at that point forfeit his right to self defense?

As per self-defense law in Florida, and failure of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is the aggressor and failed to prove that he acted out of self-defense boundaries, the only logical verdict is Not-guilty on all charges.

Let me add, if someone armed and in the hunt to get someone killed because he acts in suspicious manner, did he ever call a non-emergency number of local PD to report it?!!!

I hate when the state demonize any good-citizen who reports suspicious acts. Worse, appealing to emotions of the jury rather relying on facts of the trial is a shame.

Finally, there are facts and there is the law, the jury has only to marry the facts to the law and the judge the outcome.I guess, we either have a mistrial or not-guilty in this trial. I am pretty sure that at least one juror is convinced of innocence and will never yield if the rest are driven by their emotions.

The greatest blunder of the state prosecutor is when he lead investigator , a witness for the state, testified that GZ was truthful in his account of the incident. Worst, the state ask the court to strike this part of his statement as evidence. The state witness were testifying in favor of the defense. The jury should take notes, no?

sjfcontrol wrote:

texanjoker wrote: Never said I would. This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

Sounds like you've got reasonable doubt to me -- you'd have to find him not-guilty.

By the way. Suppose it happened just the way you describe, and Z did follow and perhaps even confront M. Assuming the M threw the first punch, and then proceeded to "hand his rear end to him", did Z at that point forfeit his right to self defense?

Exactly. Usually it is the prosecution with the facts and the defense gets to punch reasonable doubt holes in their facts. This time the defense has facts and the prosecution is doing nothing more than putting "what if", "believe", "why didn't", reasonable doubts of the facts out for the jury. This is a backwards case and I believe Mark O'Mara did not help when he attempted to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" he client acted in self defense, it could have confused some on the jury as to state's burden.

When the prosecution is using "what if's" you have to find not guilty - their case is based on reasonable doubt.

Beiruty wrote: The greatest blunder of the state prosecutor is when he lead investigator , a witness for the state, testified that GZ was truthful in his account of the incident. Worst, the state ask the court to strike this part of his statement as evidence. The state witness were testifying in favor of the defense. The jury should take notes, no?

I am still wrapping my brain around how, a day after the testimony was given, the state could come in and ask for testimony (from THEIR client) to be stricken and it was. I did not know that you could object ex post facto because you did not like the testimony and have it yanked. I saw them try it again but that time they were denied.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Beiruty wrote: The greatest blunder of the state prosecutor is when he lead investigator , a witness for the state, testified that GZ was truthful in his account of the incident. Worst, the state ask the court to strike this part of his statement as evidence. The state witness were testifying in favor of the defense. The jury should take notes, no?

I am still wrapping my brain around how, a day after the testimony was given, the state could come in and ask for testimony (from THEIR client) to be stricken and it was. I did not know that you could object ex post facto because you did not like the testimony and have it yanked. I saw them try it again but that time they were denied.

The jury heard it and took notes. It should be in their mind that the Lead investigator sided with the defense. Stricken or not, I estimated that there is at least one juror would hold out and the end result is mistrial. Would the state re-try GZ?!!!

If TM was AFRAID of the "creepy cracker" as he referred to GZ, why did he not simply continue on to his dad's place and tell him that someone was following him? And I stick with my earlier statement that is because he was immersed into a culture that told him he was tough and to not take anything off anyone and to confront anyone who disrespected him. I'm not asking you to buy any, but go online and listen to gangsta rap, THE WORDS, and see what all they say in that type of music. I listened to it a little when I was younger and I KNOW what is said...but then again, the rap artists weren't really talking to me.

Valor wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Instead of calling a cop, this thug called his girlfriend, bragged he was about to beat the guy down,(and probably steal his wallet), made racial slurs about the person following him and then set up a surprise attack.
!

Pardon me, but you are misstating the facts. The female friend called him. It was never stated Martin bragged about a beat down. There is no evidence presented inferring or stating Martin was attempting a mugging. Surprise attack? Did the defense present that, if so with what evidence? Nevertheless, people on both sides continue to spew out their versions of what happened rather what have actually been presented in a court of law.

Clearly you didn't follow the case.

texanjoker wrote:
... A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk....

I found this a disturbing assertion.

No, he does NOT have a "right" not to be profiled as a punk, a boy scout, or anything else, nor a right to control anyone else's thoughts, whether they are nice or not-so-nice thoughts. It is profoundly wrong to assert a "right" to control others' thinking.

And he also does not have a "right" against some other citizen asking him, or even demanding of him, what he is doing in the public area of a neighborhood. He CAN refuse to answer, he can walk away, he can run away, he can call the cops, he can tell the other guy to back off (what I would have done if approached by a "creepy" anything), and he can defend himself IF he is attacked. In this case there is zero evidence that Martin was attacked, or even struck by anything other than a bullet, and plenty of evidence that GZ was straddled by Martin and beaten.

texanjoker wrote:I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide.

You're a cop, right? Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that GZ "chased" anyone, being chased by a cop is a whole different ball game than being "chased" by a civilian.

texanjoker wrote:This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting.

What he said was "punks", not "punk". He was referring to the long list of young black males who had plundered his neighborhood. To him Martin looked like another one cut from the same cloth. How was he to know that he wasn't?

texanjoker wrote:Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything?

All you have to do now is explain how, if Z chased Martin, how they ended up by the T when Martin's "girlfriend" testified that he said he was "right by his father's house". Did the obsese out of shape Z chase Martin all the way back to the T? What evidence is there to support that theory?

texanjoker wrote:Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired.

And that is completely irrelevant under Florida law. EVEN IF you are the aggressor (which, under case law requires that you physically touch the other person, not chase them and not insult them), you regain the right to self defense if the other party escalates the violence to the point that you believe your life is in danger or you will suffer severe bodily harm.

If you don't think smacking someone's head on concrete qualifies, then I shudder to think that you are a police officer.

Ask yourself this. Had ANY of your fellow officers been in a similar position, would you have expected them to shoot the suspect?

texanjoker wrote:I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

I followed the trial from beginning to end. I don't think the decision is hard at all. I think the jury is reviewing all the evidence that was entered but never discussed at trial, and once that's completed they will return with either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.

This certainly adds to the prosecution's luster:

/url]State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case

The "concerns" were that the prosecution did not turn over information they had extracted from Martin's phone that did not reflect well on him. The defense did not get it until right before the trial started, asked for more time to review it and for it to be place in evidence. The judge denied this, and postponed a sanctions (against the prosecution) hearing until after the trial.

The IT guy who extracted the info from Martin's phone realized the prosecution was not turning over his reports; and he got worried that he would be later held liable over it, contacted a personal lawyer (who interestingly had worked in Corey's office and did not like her). That lawyer contacted the defense, and that's when the defense became aware of the reports.

Right after closing arguments, Corey fired the IT guy.

mamabearCali wrote: His school record, his calling people racial slurs, the fact that he was suspended for ten days and had been out of school more than he had been in it, the burglary tools found in his possession. The fact that his mother could not handle him and so sent him to his father. He was not a church boy on his way to choir practice. He was nearly a man and was on a downward spiral.

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

texanjoker wrote:This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk.

Actually, that statement is incorrect. The 17 year old has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home. Those observing him have the right to "profile" him, and make any judgement that suits them. They even have the right to act on that judgement, as long as they don't break the law in doing so. Even if he profiled Martin, Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal in following him.

texanjoker wrote:Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide.

At the time, Zimmerman did say he was running away. Later, he discovered that what he perceived as "running away" was actually "circling around".

texanjoker wrote:I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him.

Why? Why do you "believe" that? If Martin's Not-Girlfriend is to be believed, he had arrived at his parents house while speaking to her on the phone. Afterwards, the confrontation with Zimmerman was away from the father's house. Why would he have "run away" from safety? Sorry, the "I'm going to get the creepy a** cracka" narrative fits the facts of the case much better than "I'm running away from the creepy a** cracka"

texanjoker wrote:At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything?

There's no evidence that it happened like that. Not-girlfriend testified that Martin spoke first, and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem?" Zimmerman said the same thing before hearing Not-Girlfriend's testimony. Zimmerman claimed that he said no, and that Martin said you do now, and sucker punched him. The Not-Girlfriend didn't say that, only that the phone was dropped in the wet grass, and she didn't hear anything more. So, her testimony "fits" what Zimmerman said, and the physical evidence (broken nose) seems to as well.

texanjoker wrote:Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help.

I agre with this part, but would have to ask; why would Martin's family lie about who was screaming for help? (I suspect that answer is because they want Zimmerman to hang). I wish the defense would have been able to ask why Martin would scream for help. He didn't need help before the gun was deployed, and a split second later, he couldn't scream for help.

texanjoker wrote:He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired.

The cyinc in me would say he was somewhat prepared. Which is why he walked away and Martin didn't. Whatever the motivation for the situation, it was Martin who misjudged who was prepared for what. He paid the price for it.

Valor wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: His school record, his calling people racial slurs, the fact that he was suspended for ten days and had been out of school more than he had been in it, the burglary tools found in his possession. The fact that his mother could not handle him and so sent him to his father. He was not a church boy on his way to choir practice. He was nearly a man and was on a downward spiral.

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

Even thugs have the right to self defense.