17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[KG1]

Truth be told you don't know how it happened. You hear one side and from eye witnesses who really didn't see too much. It may have went down like Knute said, it may have went down where Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman truly was defending his life.

I have read in articles that Zimmerman followed after Martin, I have read on here with no corroborating links that Martin circled Zimmermans truck and was yelling at him. Those are two entirely different accounts on what happened.

I just hope the true facts come out and we probably wont ever know what they are unless you are a juror. The problem is the "first hand accounts" seem to be changing as time goes along. I read an article this morning that four witnesses are wavering on their stories.

Trayvon Martin shooting: Witnesses change stories ahead of Zimmerman trial | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Martin killed Zimmerman? I was just referring to his hypothetical question.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Martin killed Zimmerman? I was just referring to his hypothetical question.

You know that is not what I meant, go back and read post 3490 on page 88.

See here...

"We are are in agreement that Martin took note of Zimmerman (ie that he was aware at the very least of being watched by him), correct? We are also, all in agreement that Martin and Zimmerman were unknown to each other, correct?

Now IF Martin was NOT doing anything wrong (which I won't argue about, but "if") and IF Zimmerman was chasing him, would that not change the situation significantly?"

As I said in my previous post that very well may have been how it went down, there are two people who know exactly what happened. One is telling his side and the other is dead. None of the witnesses really saw anything definitive, backed up by some changing their stories as time went along. See link I posted last time.

Kutne is right in post 3490 if that is really what transpired it should change the opinions of some. I am not saying Zimmerman was a blood thirsty killer, what I am saying is he very well have made mistakes in the course of events that ended up with a dead kid. For the 15th time, I dont think he was guilty of murder from everything I have read, but we dont know if he was just simply guilty of nothing or played a big part in escalating something that ended in a lost life.

Whether Martin is a good kid, bad kid, thug, black, white, purple, or even whether he smoked pot that day is irrelevant or at least it should be. That has nothing to do with him walking home from a gas station, if he was breaking into a home or committing a crime then fine, but he wasn't.

 

[griffin]

I have read in articles that Zimmerman followed after Martin, I have read on here with no corroborating links that Martin circled Zimmermans truck and was yelling at him. Those are two entirely different accounts on what happened.

Nope, the same thing. And the link is the 911 audio. Have you listened to it? While Zimmerman is on the phone with the call taker, he tells her that Martin is approaching him. A little later, Martin takes off running. That's when Zimmerman begins going after him. It was also in Zimmerman's statement to the SPD.

The 911 audio has been posted, although the SPD has now removed it from their website as per Angela Corey's instructions. A summary of Zimmerman's statement and recreation of what happened has been issued by the police. It was published in the Orlando Sentinal, and I'm sure it has been picked up elsewhere.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Nope, the same thing. And the link is the 911 audio. Have you listened to it? While Zimmerman is on the phone with the call taker, he tells her that Martin is approaching him. A little later, Martin takes off running. That's when Zimmerman begins going after him. It was also in Zimmerman's statement to the SPD.

The 911 audio has been posted, although the SPD has now removed it from their website as per Angela Corey's instructions. A summary of Zimmerman's statement and recreation of what happened has been issued by the police. It was published in the Orlando Sentinal, and I'm sure it has been picked up elsewhere.

Martin approaching Zimmerman is vastly different than what I read in this thread were someone said that Martin was circling his truck and yelling at home asking if he had a problem with him or something along those lines. I don't care enough to comb through however many pages to find it.

There just seems to be so much missing information, who is right, who is wrong, what did anyone see, etc.

Maybe I am crazy or just a big weenie, but I am not following a guy who I think is suspicious or maybe a criminal. I am not putting myself in a position of danger if I don't need to. That to me is the opposite of self defense. I am taking myself out of the situation and let the cops handle it.

What if Martin was a real criminal and had a gun and shot Zimmerman after Z tried to follow M? Sure martin would go down for murder, but Martin was dumb for following him and putting himself into that situation. He didnt know what Martin was capable of or what he was carrying.

If Martin came to his truck or home that is totally different imo. Again Zimmerman is imo not a murderer, but he is looking like a fool to me.

 

[hornadylnl]

Martin approaching Zimmerman is vastly different than what I read in this thread were someone said that Martin was circling his truck and yelling at home asking if he had a problem with him or something along those lines. I don't care enough to comb through however many pages to find it.

There just seems to be so much missing information, who is right, who is wrong, what did anyone see, etc.

Maybe I am crazy or just a big weenie, but I am not following a guy who I think is suspicious or maybe a criminal. I am not putting myself in a position of danger if I don't need to. That to me is the opposite of self defense. I am taking myself out of the situation and let the cops handle it.

What if Martin was a real criminal and had a gun and shot Zimmerman after Z tried to follow M? Sure martin would go down for murder, but Martin was dumb for following him and putting himself into that situation. He didnt know what Martin was capable of or what he was carrying.

If Martin came to his truck or home that is totally different imo. Again Zimmerman is imo not a murderer, but he is looking like a fool to me.

I've got an 1800sf basement. There's plenty of room in it to hang out with me if you want.

 

[griffin]

Martin approaching Zimmerman is vastly different than what I read in this thread were someone said that Martin was circling his truck and yelling at home asking if he had a problem with him or something along those lines.

Now you are bringing up a third thing, Martin asking Zimmerman if he had a problem with him. You keep getting your facts and timeline mixed up.

That was what the girl Trayvon was talking to said to the police when interviewed, and what Zimmerman said in his statement. This was at the end, after Zimmerman ended his conversation with the police call taker, right before Trayvon sucker-punched Zimmerman. There is no audio of that.

There just seems to be so much missing information, who is right, who is wrong, what did anyone see, etc.

Corey will be releasing the rest of the evidence shortly (I hope!)

Maybe I am crazy or just a big weenie, but I am not following a guy who I think is suspicious or maybe a criminal. I am not putting myself in a position of danger if I don't need to. That to me is the opposite of self defense. I am taking myself out of the situation and let the cops handle it.

What if Martin was a real criminal and had a gun and shot Zimmerman after Z tried to follow M? Sure martin would go down for murder, but Martin was dumb for following him and putting himself into that situation. He didnt know what Martin was capable of or what he was carrying.

If Martin came to his truck or home that is totally different imo. Again Zimmerman is imo not a murderer, but he is looking like a fool to me.

All that may very well be true, but we are (trying to) discuss the legalities of what happened. Some people keep saying, "Well I wouldn't do that!" and "Zimmerman was stupid!" Maybe so, but how does that affect the legality of what happened, just because you wouldn't do it?

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't think it murder applies either; just for the record. I do not think that Zimmerman intentionally set out to kill Martin. If he had, I seriously doubt he would have called the police first. I think manslaughter fit better. But regardless, Zimmerman's poor decisions put blood on his hands.

Do you have ANY scenario in which Zimmerman is innocent? Any? No, didn't think so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you have ANY scenario in which Zimmerman is innocent? Any? No, didn't think so.

Yep, the one where he stayed in his car while waiting for police to arrive 2 minutes later, during which time Martin attacks him, and Zimmerman shoots him in self defense.

 

[Bond 281]

Yep, the one where he stayed in his car while waiting for police to arrive 2 minutes later, during which time Martin attacks him, and Zimmerman shoots him in self defense.

So stepping out of your vehicle makes you guilty of manslaughter if someone later attacks you? Gotcha.

 

[KG1]

I've got another one where Zimmerman never left his house that day.

 

[Expat]

So stepping out of your vehicle makes you guilty of manslaughter if someone later attacks you? Gotcha.

Certainly makes me think I should never get out of my vehicle when I am in Carmel... how can I go to Shapiros now...

 

[CarmelHP]

Yep, the one where he stayed in his car while waiting for police to arrive 2 minutes later, during which time Martin attacks him, and Zimmerman shoots him in self defense.

And what about standing on a sidewalk makes him guilty? According to your prior posts in this thread anyone can stand anywhere on public property, right? Why couldn't Zimmerman legally stand on the sidewalk? That's the disconnect.

 

[CarmelHP]

I've got another one where Zimmerman never left his house that day.

Or never bought a house there.

 

[CarmelHP]

Certainly makes me think I should never get out of my vehicle when I am in Carmel... how can I go to Shapiros now...

From what he said before it sounded like if you were standing on the pavement in a ski mask in front of the PNC on Rangeline he wouldn't even slow down because your clothing doesn't matter and he wouldn't hassle you for standing on a public thoroughfare. Martin is given the benefit of every doubt but the mountain of evidence for Zimmerman is discounted while the molehill against him is trumpeted as conclusive.

 

[griffin]

I've got another one where Zimmerman never left his house that day.

Well, I've got one where Martin hadn't been suspended from school and pawned off on his father in another town (who wasn't even there), so was at home and not in Sanford that day.

We can do this all day, but that doesn't address the legalities of what happened.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Do you have ANY scenario in which Zimmerman is innocent? Any? No, didn't think so.

Innocent of what? Murder, yes. I think he is not guilty of murder right now pretty much like anyone else on either side of the argument in this thread.

Manslaughter, maybe maybe not. It really depends on the facts of the case, which we have nothing that is a clear cut chain of events. We have one side and a bunch of pieces from others who may or may not have seen anything and whose story may be changing as time goes along.

What about you? Do you see any scenario where Zimmerman was at fault in this? Even a little bit?

A better question is do you think he would have followed Martin if he did not have the gun? I have always been told dont do anything with a gun that you wouldnt do without one.

Another question is why are people passing off what Zimmerman said as absolute fact? It may be, but it also may NOT be. I mean he does have a reason to angle it towards making him look better. I am NOT saying he is doing that, but who knows if he is. We cannot take what his side is as absolute fact. Some are using it as just that.

 

[CarmelHP]

Innocent of what? Murder, yes. I think he is not guilty of murder right now pretty much like anyone else on either side of the argument in this thread.

Manslaughter, maybe maybe not. It really depends on the facts of the case, which we have nothing that is a clear cut chain of events. We have one side and a bunch of pieces from others who may or may not have seen anything and whose story may be changing as time goes along.

What about you? Do you see any scenario where Zimmerman was at fault in this? Even a little bit?

A better question is do you think he would have followed Martin if he did not have the gun? I have always been told dont do anything with a gun that you wouldnt do without one.

Innocent. What part of innocent is ambivalent?

Actually, if you read this thread I posted several scenarios which, if true, I would think Zimmerman guilty of some type of unlawful killing. A lot of people won't go out at night without a gun on them, if they have to use it to stop an attack does that make them a criminal because "they shoulda stayed at home?"

 

[terrehautian]

If Zimmerman shouldn't have left home that night, then whoever gets into a car wreck should not have been driving. That is a BS reason overall.

 

[griffin]

Another question is why are people passing off what Zimmerman said as absolute fact? It may be, but it also may NOT be. I mean he does have a reason to angle it towards making him look better.

Here's something I wrote in a post here six or seven weeks ago:

You say Zimmerman's statements are self-serving, but if they are the truth, what's he to do?

If he's lying, he's both very good and very lucky that nothing the police have found after weeks of investigation into this has run contrary to his statements. Not eyewitnesses, not physical evidence.

and in another post

Whether or not you believe Zimmerman's story, the fact remains it's about all we have to go by. Unless the statements of the other witnesses, or the physical evidence, are inconsistent with it, there's nothing to build a case on. Your opinion may be that Zimmerman is lying, but until you can prove that in court, you have no case. Zimmerman's account of the incident seems to be backed up by both physical evidence and witness testimony. Any other "theory" about what happened is not.

I do find it worth mentioning that Zimmerman's statement was made without knowledge of what other evidence the police had. It tends to suggest to me that it's reasonably accurate, as he had no way of knowing if any parts of the incident were being videotaped, seen, or heard until after he made his statement. If you're going to fabricate something, you're highly likely to get caught in a lie if you don't know exactly what's out there to prove your story wrong.

He's either telling the truth, an unbelievably skilled liar, or incredibly lucky. Whichever it is, there simply seems to be nothing to build a case on.

and last week

Zimmerman was taken to the scene for walk-throughs three different times in the immediate aftermath. Each time, according the to police reports, he was grilled about exactly what happened and how. He was also told there were eye witnesses to the events of that night, although he had absolutely no idea what they had seen.

In each walk-through, and in each interview, his story never changed. Not once.

and four days ago

The police told him there were witnesses. The police did not tell him how many or what they saw. I suspect that is a technique LEOs use to pressure people into telling the truth, knowing they can be shown to be lying if witnesses say otherwise. So Zimmerman recreated the shooting, and not only didn't his story change, but it didn't contradict anything the witnesses did tell the police. Nothing. Either Zimmerman told the truth or he is really, really lucky. Zimmerman's statement was that Trayvon sucker-punched him and jumped on top when Zimmerman hit the ground.

So yes, I have addressed the possibility of Zimmerman lying. Many times. And this is the conclusion I have come up with. He wasn't.

 

[KG1]

Well, I've got one where Martin hadn't been suspended from school and pawned off on his father in another town (who wasn't even there), so was at home and not in Sanford that day.

We can do this all day, but that doesn't address the legalities of what happened.

That's my point. Tell that to Kutnupe, he started this whole "what if" thing.

Howbout we just deal with what did happen based on the evidence and not "what if's"?