Yes it is. The fact he ignored advice/instruction/suggestion/hints/allusions/winks that he should not go after the man he said was acting suspiciously is evidence that he did not have to fight him. He could have stayed where he was and let the police do what they are empowered and trained to do, and there would have been no need to fight.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
George Zimmerman not guilty.
- Thread starter smudge
- Start date
Yes it is. The fact he ignored advice/instruction/suggestion/hints/allusions/winks that he should not go after the man he said was acting suspiciously is evidence that he did not have to fight him. He could have stayed where he was and let the police do what they are empowered and trained to do, and there would have been no need to fight.
yxee
Well-known member
I'm saying it's consistent with that story.
This is predicated on hindsight, there is still no evidence that GZ followed TM as part of an active and knowledgeable choice to start a fight.
You can say that if he didn't follow TM there wouldn't have been a fight, but that is not a logical reason to blame him for the fight. And, again, you're calling it a fight when the evidence supports the story of an unprovoked attack, since TM had no wounds apart from knuckle damage and the gunshot.
Last edited:
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
But as I understand it, Zimmerman was in his car when he first saw Trayvon he called the police, exited his car and followed Trayvon, at this point Trayvon had done nothing, up until this point is Trayvon still the aggressor?
yxee
Well-known member
There is no aggressor up to that point because there is no aggression. Up to this point, nobody has broken any law.
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
So at what point did Trayvon become the aggressor and why did it happen?
yxee
Well-known member
Could you read the wikipedia page? I've answered this already. All I want is for people to stop deliberately or unintentionally misinterpreting evidence and embellishing facts. A jury heard all the evidence and unanimously agreed that GZ acted in self defence because the prosecution presented no evidence to the contrary.
Asking me endless questions will not change this.
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
I don't seem to be able to get my point over to you, I was having a discussion with you about the case, it was your opinion I was after but if you cannot give that and only want to relist the evidence heard in court fair enough.
yxee
Well-known member
The truth is nobody knows what happened, except GZ. Maybe he is lying, maybe he decided to pick a 45 second fight with someone before suddenly deciding to shoot them, and maybe he is dumb enough to think that it would be a good idea to call the police moments before this premeditated crime. Maybe the eyewitness was colour-blind and confused the two people fighting, and maybe GZ head-butted TM in the knuckles of his left hand as a first act of aggression initiated the confrontation.
It's my opinion that this is not likely, and it's also my opinion that the policemen dropped the initial charges for a reason, and that the media circus that has ensued is designed to sell papers and advertising money by playing on the race element. Barack Obama has chimed in to score political capital on more than one occasion as well. It's divisive, and facts are rarely presented in a balanced way.
That's why I'm posting here.
It's my opinion that this is not likely, and it's also my opinion that the policemen dropped the initial charges for a reason, and that the media circus that has ensued is designed to sell papers and advertising money by playing on the race element. Barack Obama has chimed in to score political capital on more than one occasion as well. It's divisive, and facts are rarely presented in a balanced way.
That's why I'm posting here.
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
When has it ever been suggested Zimmerman head-butted Trayvons knuckles with his head, that's a very interesting interpretation of the case, that you think that is only way Zimmerman could have sparked the confrontation. I can see you are no Obama fan, may explain some your reasoning. Thanks for the reply about your own feelings on the case.
It's not likely a man who killed someone would lie about it? It's not likely a man would get into a fight? It's not likely a man would start a fight with someone and then start losing? It's not likely that a man taking his own prejudices into this fight might think it more justifiable to use a gun than others might? It's not likely that racism may still exist in America? It's not likely that a man who will ignore safety advice to follow trayvon might confront him, that in confronting him trayvon defended himself, and that Zimmerman realised he was losing the fight so shot trayvon, a fight that he might well have started, possibly even threatening trayvon with the gun initially, leading to trayvon using more force? It's not likely that the witness only caught a bit of the fight, in the dark and rain?
No one is making ridiculous claims about how Zimmerman got his injuries, but we are pointing out he had no reason, and was advised against, approaching trayvon, but he chose to ignore that advice. We are pointing out he did so while knowing he had a gun. We are pointing out trayvon had done nothing except walk home up to this point. That the whole situation would have been avoided if he did as he was told/advised/recommended/however you want to put it, by the police dispatcher. The event arose because of zimmerman's actions. We are pointing out that Zimmerman shot and killed trayvon. That the circumstances surround this killing came about because of zimmerman's decision to ignore police advice.
No one is making ridiculous claims about how Zimmerman got his injuries, but we are pointing out he had no reason, and was advised against, approaching trayvon, but he chose to ignore that advice. We are pointing out he did so while knowing he had a gun. We are pointing out trayvon had done nothing except walk home up to this point. That the whole situation would have been avoided if he did as he was told/advised/recommended/however you want to put it, by the police dispatcher. The event arose because of zimmerman's actions. We are pointing out that Zimmerman shot and killed trayvon. That the circumstances surround this killing came about because of zimmerman's decision to ignore police advice.
yxee
Well-known member
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
You chose to attack Obama for 'chiming' in but did not mention some of appalling comments made by politicians from the right, not to mention those on Fox News you can hardly have missed if you have read anything about the case. I was asking you about the case but you chose to bring in the President.
yxee
Well-known member
I was referring to all news outlets in that post - controversy sells papers on both sides. My list of political beneficiaries was not intended to be exhaustive. I think the point about the media circus still stands.
That is true, an alternative explanation is conspicuously absent.
Is approaching someone criminal? (is there even evidence that he did approach him?) I follow what you're saying, if xyz did not happen then a bad thing would not have happened, therefore xyz is, to some degree, at fault. I just disagree with that method of partitioning out guilt.
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
Do you work for Fox News, it's almost uncanny but your words could so easily have come from Geraldo, is that you?
http://www.newshounds.us/geraldo_rivera_still_blaming_trayvon_martin_for_his_own_death_07142013
There was alternative explanations for his injuries in the reply you quoted.
If he didn't approach trayvon, and this incident didn't occur at zimmerman's car, how do you explain the two of them even interacting? No, I think you're stretching to suggest Zimmerman did not approach trayvon. He left his car and made his way to where trayvon was. This doesn't remove the possibility that trayvon saw him approaching and met him half way, but to suggest Zimmerman didn't approach him doesn't tally with what is known of the case.
I'm not saying he is guilty because he left his car and ignored police advice, I'm saying ignoring police advice and leaving his car makes me doubt that he is so innocent, doubt that he was just standing a reasonable distance from trayvon and trayvon needlessly attacked him and it was all just self defence.
For me, that act of ignoring police advice and leaving his car is indicative of a frame of mind, it suggest, to me, a degree of intent (maybe just verbal initially, maybe a little rough housing) and that further action from Zimmerman is more likely to have been the initial cause of the conflict, than trayvon randomly assaulting the guy.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
You what? You should read the comments, this is awfull journalism at its worse. They are using a 5 year old picture of Traveylin when he was 12, now 17 and same weight but 4 inches taller than zimmerman.
Ive been following the case as I tend to hang out in a more international crowd and its a clear cut aquittal.
Maybe at a stretch involuntary manslaughter in the prosecution was not trying to portray Zimmerman as a wannabe Tackleberry from Police Academy.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Glad I read this post first, saves the trouble of the rest of the thread.
Thread closed then?
As an aside, do you work in an airport?
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
Lets just hope when he is out and about with his gun, he has said he intends to carry it again when it is returned to him, he does not see any other 'suspicious' males around.
Dandyman
In London village.
Do you have any proof of that ?
Dandyman
In London village.
No doubt the usual suspects cheering on the "not guilty" verdict would have told us that Emmett Till had it coming, too.