T. Martin Incident

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


I do think about Seattle from time to time (Sorry for the thread jack). Im in a tricky position right now.... I dont like my job and I dont want to live where I am.

I dont know where I want to go or what I want to do. As of now Im thinking my plan is just to travel on my monies (15k$ + 15k$ in my 401k) for about as long as I can or until I find a place I want to stay for a while. Seattle was fun but I dont think Im a city person, maybe somewhere in the North West close to Seattle.

FYI I am planning on checking out Australia, NZ and south east Asia, maybe visit Japan....
 
An old saying in life is DON'T DO THE CRIME AND YOU WON'T DO TIME.Very true indeed.

 


If saving money was the sole mantra by which our legal system is run then there is no way that the death penalty should exist. It is exorbitantly expensive to execute anyone..with good reason...excluding Texas.
As for myself I don't believe in lowering our societal beliefs for legalized vengence. The way to deal with the lesser of society is to lock them up and forget about them.
 


They actually.. and oddly enough.. reported *correctly*. How so? There were 2 witnesses. The person who had the "not so believable" testimony said that Zimmerman was on top. This person lived further away and didn't have direct line of sight from their house.

The guy who's yard Trayvon and Zimmerman were rolling around in.. in his backyard, is the guy who said that Trayvon was on top and that Zimmerman was on the ground. He was the closest person to it and had a visual of it. The key to his testimony is that before he knew who Zimmerman or Martin were, he identified the positions by the color of clothing they were wearing in his police report that night. Later on he learned who was wearing what.. and that is the key piece.

Zimmerman will walk a free man. The Prosecution has nothing on him; They're charging him with murder which means he had to have the ill-will and intent to kill; He called 911 twice. If he had intent to kill, he wouldn't have done that, therefore reasonable doubt that he was out to murder Trayvon can't be the right charge. Manslaughter would have been a better charge but the penalty much less. That would have been more reasonable.

In the end, hindsight doesn't factor in. It matters what Zimmerman thought AT THE time he was being attacked; not afterwards. He stated he was in fear of his life or extreme bodily harm. Guess what folks, that's personal defense and using force to kill someone is reasonable.

If Zimmerman shot him 2 or more times, then it would be reasonable to charge him with murder. He fired once. That's also a critical point because he didn't use excessive force to ensure Trayvon would die.
 
GZ should do time but probably will not because a dead man tells no tales. As far as who was on top of who, who cares they bother were probably rolling around on the ground...GZ chose not to listen to the police and we ended up where we are today...
 
By his own recorded testimony that night, he was out of his vehicle to get an address on a house when he was attacked by Martin, who apparently jumped out of or behind a bush. That was recorded by the police on the night of the attack and has been consistent.

He will walk. He shouldn't serve time either. It is sad that a kid is dead from it, but choices have consequences. If Martin simply would have said he was going home to such and such, or asked Zimmerman to leave him alone, then the burden would be on Zimmerman, not Martin. But by Martin's own key witness, he didn't say anything like that, nor did he ask Zimmerman to leave him alone.

In fact, one of the key rules for self defense is to tell the person to stop and leave you alone. That's key. Martin didn't do this before the 'fight' and therefore his argument of self defense can't be used. Zimmerman on the other hand is heard asking a question and responding to Martin before the fight. The physical fight started before Zimmerman had the chance to tell Martin to stop, therefore it is unneeded in this situation.

To sum up, if Martin would have told Zimmerman to stop following him and that he was leaving, he could use the self defense stance himself and make Zimmerman the aggressor. If Martin would have told Zimmerman to stop following him and Zimmerman attacked him, Martin would have legally been able to smash Zimmerman's head in the concrete until unconscious or dead. Again, Martin's actions didn't do him any favors. Street like attitude doesn't hold up well in the legal proceedings of the court of law.
 
Sorry, not listening to the police in my book is grounds for his arrest. There are three types of truths, GZ's, TM's and the real truth and only one is being told.
 
You've been listening to the speculation before the trial. You should stop and look at the evidence instead of what you heard before the trial started. Yes, he was told he did not need to follow Trayvon anymore. In his recorded testimony from the night of the shooting, he said he was outside of his vehicle because he was trying to find an address to give to the police so they could come out. It was raining which is reasonable that he was out of his vehicle to find an address. That's an easy argument to defend; If it was a nice clear day where visibility wouldn't be impaired, then it wouldn't be as defendable. You have to remember that this is the testimony he gave, while being recorded, shortly after the shooting. Everyone else has sought council, had time to get their stories together, etc. His story is from when it happened, prior to seeking out council for advice or how to word things.

Then you can go back and look at Trayvon's own dad initially saying that the screams on the phone were NOT his son's when he first heard them. Now, when on stand he denies he said that even though they have a written officer's report stating that he said the voice was not his son's. He has sought council and has changed his statement. Zimmerman is the only person who hasn't had any inconsistencies in his story. That's substantial.
 
I feel bad for George, not becasue I think he is innoccent, but becasue he has a jury of 300,000,00+ people who think he is guilty. The court is pressured to find him guilty no matter what. If not, all hell will break loose. He would need protecting from the angry mobs, something the tax payers will have to take up.

This whole case is a quagmire. Now, the Jodi Arias case was a slam dunk. That *itch was bat$*t insane.
 
Zimmerman then began the story of what happened the night he killed Martin. He was on the way to the grocery store when he saw a male "casually walking in the rain looking into homes."

He said that he pulled his car over, called 911 and told the operator what he'd witnessed. At that point, he said, the male fled to a dark area, and then, he said, "as the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness & circled by vehicle."

The "suspect," Zimmerman wrote, next disappeared between some houses.

Zimmerman gave the dispatcher his location, and as he stepped out of his vehicle to take note of the exact address, he wrote, Martin emerged again from the darkness and asked, "You got a problem?" Zimmerman reported that he said no and that "the suspect" said, "You do now."
Click to expand...

Zimmerman he said one thing, while the person on the other end of the phone said some other things. She's lied several times and failed offer evidence up when originally asked. Then when she was put on the stand, she offered up even more information she failed to let Martin's lawyer know was coming, which utlimately helped Zimmerman's case out, not Martin's.
 
If you read the police report, prior to Zimmerman calling him an a-hole, he said right before that soundbyte, "Something is wrong with this guy. He's coming to check me out. I don't know what his deal is." Followed by his all well known statement about then getting away. He clearly states on the 911 call Martin to be casually walking around in the rain looking into houses as he walked between them.
 

So from your assertion only the states witneses are twisting the truth? How naive...I'll say it again... therre are three truths, GZ's, TM's and the real truth.... and only one is being told
 
You're concerned about truths. Truths are not facts. Our legal system is based on facts, not truths. Truths are different from all aspects, facts are not. Therefore, our legal system works based on facts, not someone else's truth. For you to believe otherwise is naive. It is also naive of you to think the one's personal truth will win over the facts.
 


The legal system is supposed to be based on fact but more likely the side that wins is who presents the best view of their position.
Remember OJ? Now tell me who is naive?
 


Race had nothing to do with it but the dream team did? See last my last post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom