Is Zimmerman Guilty?

Yes I forgot he was at target, but it does not change much of anything. Many people that have guns carry them, heck some bring them to Church. The point is the guy is in a watch group, he would naturally notice people he might find suspicious. I'm trying to understand why you would object to him carrying a legal gun.
What does it have to do with it?

 

It seems to me that the only facts you were interested in earlier in this thread were the facts in favor of zimmerman....not facts that show he used extreme poor judgement, which ultimately ended in the death of a 17 year old. So the FACT that the police dispatcher advised him to not follow Trayvon means nothing to you?

 

How about simply this: If Zimmerman was going to Target. . why didn't he proceed to Target after calling the police?

And, if Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious and "up to no good" and "coming for him" when he was still in the car. . .why did he get out of his car if he was afraid of him?

Also, Zimmerman KNEW that he wasn't allowed by the HOA to carry his gun when doing his "job" as a neighborhood watch captain.

 

Did you get the answer yet?

As neighborhood watch captain, it didn't matter if he had the right to carry a concealed weapon in his every day life. Zimmerman knew full well that he was NOT ALLOWED to be armed while acting as a neighborhood watch person. . .

 

I certainly must agree with you there. Living in Flushing along Main Street one see's many things and as a block watcher I reported them. Does that mean I was doing the wrong thing? I don't think so. I was trying to keep my neighborhood safe. George Zimmerman was doing the same. Trayon Martin the teenager was looking for an easy payday. Whoops, it turned out to be 125grs of a 9mm. If he had been shot in Chicago it would have been just another shooting, although Rahm might have also made an example of Zimmerman too.

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok you are now changing things to fit your argument. I don't care that he carried his gun. YOU said "that is what he was there for, and most likely why he had his gun" YOU brought the reason for the gun into the conversation. I said "he was going to target" (so one false statement for you) and so he needed his gun to go to target? (As you implied that he had his gun with him for the task he was on) It's fine that he noticed someone suspicious, and he did the right thing...he called the cops.......but after that, he screwed up. Do not put words in my mouth, i have not once said i had a problem with him carrying a legal gun. I've simply proved some of your statements and arguments wrong with FACTS that you so love to say are all that matters.

 

So you are saying what? People should not follow a suspicious person? It goes on all day and night. You will never stop that, and shouldn't.

What I believe is anytime you get violent with a person you never know what will happen, how do you know a punch in the nose might not lead to ones death, you dont. Violence is violence, get involved and you are taking a huge chance.

 

You report them....do you arm yourself and follow them?

 

Absolutely correct, we don't know exactly what happened. This has been repeated many times here. And since we don't know what happened, how exactly are we supposed to prove GZ did anything wrong with the evidence present? Only one guy can tell the story, the other is busy pushing up daisies.

 

Was any of this illegal? Does it change the evidence that is currently available? So he was shopping and not on patrol, so what? Does this illuminate the conflict in any way? Not really. But it sure sells air time when you should be reporting on something more important.

Him following him is not illegal, nor is him questioning him, nor is him having a weapon. So what exactly is it you are getting after? How does any of this help the prosecution?

 

Hey,,whats the big deal I forgot, there is so much of this to remember. What are you saying I deliberately tried to trick you? Come on the fact is it makes no difference, I'm not trying to ..get you, or change a story. I have no idea why he exactly carries it but what's the difference? This is not a contest, it's a discussion.
Point being it changes nothing, it is not a important fact, proves nothing.

 

Hmm.. is that what happened? just a bloody nose? Not a broken nose and concusion? Are you now claiming that aggravated assault and battery should be allowed and Trayvon should be alive?
How many times must Zimmerman state that he felt in fear for his life after his head was pounded into the concrete. Maybe we should blame the guy who witnessed the assault of Martin and self defense of Zimmerman. Why didn't the only witness go to break it up?
Zimmerman was justified.

 

Simple. Did you look at the evidence and compare it to GZ's statements?

Some of us have, extensively, for almost a year.

More evidences will come out during trial, but the forensic is already very interesting. Especially the trajectory of the bullet, the DNA evidence, the holes and blood stains in Martin's clothing.

 

Apparently you haven't heard the police tape of incident, or you just prefer to accept the CBS altered tape. Which is it?

 

How about this,,I really do not know, and either do you. How does this mean anything?

 

Unless I am very wrong. HOA is not criminal code, but civil. This is a criminal matter, not civil. HOA is free to sue him for breach of contract though. But there should be zero criminal liability for what he did. If it were criminal people would be dragged to jail for not paying their fees and for not keeping their lawns at precisely 2 3/4 inches tall.

 

What you ''think'' you know may be entirely false by the time this goes to court, and much of it changes nothing anyway. This has been the problem from the start, people fanning this for their own agenda. I'm not saying you, I'm saying what you hear.

 

ughhh,,,I'm tired everybody,,Good debate,,Good night...

 

The trial should prove most interesting. But reconstructing a battle scene that was more than likely contaminated is going to be a tough sell to an impartial jury. But I'd love to know more as it comes out. As of right now, the only way the prosecution has him is if the evidence fairy shows up with a video contradiction. Why do you think they want a plea bargain?

Prosecutors go for a plea bargain for two reasons. They can either scare the hell out of the guy into taking it, or they hope they can get him to take it. Or the third is that they are just lazy or corrupt.

 

Just as an FYI.....according to the National Neighborhood Watch Manual....
"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."
(http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf) Page 20...
This is the answer to your question as to why people are so focused on him getting out of his car and following the kid. Your excuse for him is that he was in a watch group....well.....as you can see above, if that is why it is ok that he got out of his car with his gun then you are false on all counts.

 

If Martin was still alive, he would have been able to tell HIS story of being stalked by a creepy guy while returning home, and that creepy guy answering his very basic question of "why are you following me" with an aggressive reply, and. . .and this is conjecture, but supported by the witness who heard that exchange, having the creepy guy take a hold of his hoodie in an effort to restrain him, and the struggle that followed, while Martin tried to free himself from the creepy guy's grasp and his efforts to run toward his home, with the creepy guy trying to stop him, and the creepy guy pulling out a gun to keep the kid from "getting away,". And the kid getting scared to death, knowing he couldn't outrun a gun, trying to get the gun away from the creepy guy,

There are many possible scenarios. It seems that it is a little too easy to believe every word the killer said, without even questioning the inconsistencies between his different versions of the events, and without questioning the MUCH GREATER inconsistencies between Zimmerman's statements and the forensic evidences. . . Like the trajectory of the bullet, like the missing DNA from the killer's bloody nose on the victim's hands!

There are also contradictory testimony, but what seems to have happened is that both men were on top and on the bottom during that stuggle. If Zimmemrman didn't already have his gun in his hand when he fell and Martin's straddled him, it is very unlikely that, in the position the two men were at that time, He could have grabbed his gun from the holster hidden inside his waist band, on the back side of his hip, while he was being pinned to the ground. . . And raised that gun to make a DIRECT,FRONT to BACK shot! Especially since, if the kid was straddling him, that gun would have been below the kid's thighs!

 

The official examiner report, the gun forensics and lab report, the lab reports on the blood stains and DNA, the site where the objects were found and where the body was found, the video reenactment, the audio tapes of Zimmerman's statements to the police, the witnesses calls to the police, GZ's call to the dispatcher, the background of both men, NONE of that will change. More evidence will come to light, and, if this case goes to trial rather than GZ taking a plea bargain, more expert testimonies and scenarios will be offered which will influence the outcome.

But unless you have studied the factual information already available (not through the media, but directly from the police through OFFICIAL REPORTS,). I don't think you can have a clear idea of how disconnected with the forensic GZ''s story really is!

 

Of course no one believes the reason for gun ownership given by George Zimmerman. It's simple enough.

 

The "fat cracker" stalked him while he was walking home from the store minding his own business, then chased him into a dark corridor while carrying a concealed weapon...The evidence as far as I read it indicates that Zimmerman put the young man in a position where he evidently thought he needed to defend himself against this apparent creep coming up on him...Zimmerman caused the confrontation which resulted in Martin's death by acting like a wannabe cowboy cop. He was obviously the agressor and was recorded calling Trayvon a f#@kin coon, or punk as he chased him.

Zimmerman's past record indicates a tendency toward irrational, irresponsible and violent behavior...This guy walking around with a loaded weapon was disaster waiting to happen...He is guilty of manslaughter at least...The consequences of his idiotic, irresponsible behavior is that tragically, a 17 year old kid is dead...Then this delusional ******** goes on national TV and states that he did nothing wrong and that he'd do it again...Maybe you want a nit wit like Zimmy turned loose on the streets scot free so he can load his gun and play super cop in your neighborhood, but I'd rather see him get a few years in jail and lose his right to own a firearm for life...Cheers