Thread: Prosecutors content George Zimmerman provoked confrontation w/Trayvon Martin[W;164]

Originally Posted by Mason66

I don't need to prove anything, that will come out in the court of law.

Do you think they call it a gated community for the hell of it? A gate implies a gaurd of some kind authorizing entry.

If we are to assume that all gated communities by default require 24 security, then where was the guard that night? And if a guard was to be on station, by default Zimmerman overstepped his bounds as in such a situation, shouldn't he have attempted to contact grounds security before contacting the police?

Think it through...

Sidenote: In case folks are still questioning whether or not neighborhood watchmen can carry hand guns while on patrol, according to this article pertaining to the neighborhood watch group Zimmerman belonged to, it makes clear that hand guns are not authorized while on watch patrol.

The shooting death of unarmed Trayvon Martin, 17, by the leader of a Sanford neighborhood watch group is a case where the boundary between law enforcement and everyday citizen on patrol may have been overstepped.

As they monitor coverage of that case and the many investigations it has spawned, members of local neighborhood watch and community patrol groups in Ocala and Marion County reiterate a basic fact: Their role is to serve only as trusty sidekicks to the men and women who carry firearms and make arrests.

"We are basically the eyes and ears for the Sheriff's Office and act as a deterrent by having a presence on the streets of our neighborhood," said Gary Radoff, a member of the On Top of the World community patrol group.

Experts say George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, violated many policies and protocols that neighborhood watch members nationwide follow. The cardinal one: Don't carry a gun while on patrol.

Originally Posted by Excon

Why do you find that interesting?
I would think most parents, if their son was involved in such an event, would believe that the high pitched wail was their son's.
Unfortunately an eye-witness says the crys for help belonged to Zimmerman. Which makes the affidavit dumbfounding.
Additionally, when Trayvon's Father initially heard the recording of the screams, he said they were not his son's.




Your narrative has too many inaccuracies and irrelevant info.
Too many to try and correct.
So your opinion is founded on fallacy.

You may still have the same opinion after correcting them and eliminating the irrelevant info, but at least it would be an opinion founded on accurate info.

Point out those errors and inconsistences and let's talk about them. But before you do, understand I'm not attempting to paint George Zimmerman as guilty or Trayvon Martin as innocent contrary to what you might believe from my posts. I'm merely presenting the evidence as presented - the 911 transcript, the cell phone transcript, eyewitness testimony and the affidavit - and following the logic based on what's been stated or actions committed in most cases directly from Zimmerman himself and applying alittle bit of common sense, i.e., how can a person physically assault another - "bang their head into the ground" - while also going after a gun?

You'd have to conclude that at some point during the struggle Zimmerman's gun either came free (presummably from his holster or was flung from his person) and Trayvon eventually spotted it. But if that is true, at what point did Trayvon make an attempt for it? Taking this argument out still further, we know that initially Trayvon had the upper hand. We know this from John's testimony. Why then didn't Trayvon use Zimmerman's gun against him at that point? Answer: Clearly he didn't notice Zimmerman had a gun at that point.

Now, let's flip the script for a moment. Zimmerman stated to 911 dispatcher that he noticed: 1) that the person he was following had his hands in his waistband, and 2) that he had something in his hands. Zimmerman also claims he was hit from behind. But his claim doesn't make sense when you consider the testimoney from Trayvon's girlfriend. Moreover, it doesn't follow Zimmerman's commentary from the 911 transcript.

Zimmerman said that although he lost sight of Trayvon, he reacquired him moments later and that Trayvon not only was looking directly at him but that Trayvon was approaching him. Trayvon's girlfriend stated that Trayvon did, in fact, approach Zimmerman and asked him point blank, "Why are you following me?" Does that sound like someone snuck up on an unsuspecting person and attacked them from behind?

And then there's the fact that at some point during the struggle Zimmerman gained the upper hand. Ask yourself this simple question: If Zimmerman honestly believed that: 1) the person he was following "was up to no good" and honestly believed that "they" were about to commit another home invasion and, as such, that this time they were not going to get away with it, wouldn't it make sense for Zimmerman to draw his weapon as Trayvon approached?

Taking this argument out still further, if Zimmerman's gun came free of his hand/person and Trayvon did, in fact, notice it, if that occurred while Trayvon was atop Zimmerman don't you think he would have made a play for it and used it to defend himself against his stalker?

But let's assume that Zimmerman spotted his gun first as it landed near them during the struggle but while he gained the upper hand. Now, Trayvon's on bottom and Zimmerman's on top. How does Trayvon end up getting shot? If you have a friend or family member, physically play out that scenario yourself and ask yourself this question: "How can the person on the bottom who isn't in possession of a gun while on his back gain the advantage yet still get shot? From your lower vantage point, you're pointing the gun upward, not down. How do you turn the gun during a struggle to where the barrel points at you?

Try it and get back to me via this thread and present your results.

Originally Posted by MMC

The racial crap with this case needs to stop and the Democrats need to back down from trying to tie it in with Florida's Gun laws.

I know your commentary wasn't directed at me, but I feel I need to make a couple of things clear if I haven't done so already.

I know this case has been politicized and race has become a major fact in most people's opinion/decision making process, but I want to make it abundantly clear: I did not start this thread from either a racial standpoint nor a political standpoint. I am trying extremely hard to be as objective as possible and let the evidence lead the way.

I openly admit that there is alot we don't know about what transpired particularly from the moment Zimmerman ended the 911 call until the shooting took place, but IMO there is enough information to extrapolate and if you take it to its logical conclusion, I really don't see how Zimmerman can be defended.

Both individuals made mistakes. That much is clear, but IMO Zimmerman being the more "experienced" person as far as adhering to neighborhood watch procedures is concerned could have broght this situation to a peaceful conclusion had he used his head and not his emotions (which is ironic considering how some are saying they are allowing their emotions to run amok and cloud their judgment in this matter).

Originally Posted by MMC

Thats not necessarily true we have gated communites for Condos that even have a Shack for some sort of a community secuirty guard. Yet most of them don't have anyone working in the shack. Some they just leave the light on in the shack. They even have these communities around Golf Courses. Only cops around to patrol out in those areas are County Sherriffs and State Police. So it's not like they would be able to show up lickety split if anything is happening.

Moreover people in a community are apt to notice someone who is not from their community if it is a small community. Still what profiling is there other than Zimmerman saying something about punks that had been in the neighborhood?

Listen to what you just said!

Based on Zimmerman's own testimony in the 911 transcript, he assumed Zimmerman was one of them by his "they" reference to "they always get away". Whatelse can one conclude from such statements other than Zimmerman "pinged" on Trayvon likely from the moment he saw him and assumed he was "up to no good". In short, Zimmerman automatically assumed that Trayvon was one of the "punks" you describe above. As such, you've jumped to the exact same misguided conclusion as he did based on what?

Nothing but your own opinion, not facts.

I remind you that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong here.

He wasn't traspassing. He father lived in the housing complex.

He covered himself in an effort to elude his pursuer.

Trayvon did try to run, but for reasons we may never know* he stopped.

When both parties spotted each other moments later, Trayvon did confront Zimmerman and asked him a straight-forward question, "Why are you following me?"

Based on the information we do have, where exactly did Trayvon error?

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

If we are to assume that all gated communities by default require 24 security, then where was the guard that night? And if a guard was to be on station, by default Zimmerman overstepped his bounds as in such a situation, shouldn't he have attempted to contact grounds security before contacting the police?

Think it through...

Sidenote: In case folks are still questioning whether or not neighborhood watchmen can carry hand guns while on patrol, according to this article pertaining to the neighborhood watch group Zimmerman belonged to, it makes clear that hand guns are not authorized while on watch patrol.

Most gated communities do not have security guards.. you get in and out by way of a code...The Retreat at Twin lakes is basically a somewhat run down custer of apartment houses.

Originally Posted by sharon

Most gated communities do not have security guards.. you get in and out by way of a code...The Retreat at Twin lakes is basically a somewhat run down custer of apartment houses.

If that is the case and it can be proven that Trayvon used an access code belonging to someone who lived on the premises, particularly his father, it would prove that Trayvon did have authorization to be there and that he was stalked by Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

If that is the case and it can be proven that Trayvon used an access code belonging to someone who lived on the premises, particularly his father, it would prove that Trayvon did have authorization to be there and that he was stalked by Zimmerman.

Yep.. Some of these gated communities also use a card sort of like a metro pass and you swipe it at the gate.

Trayvon had been a frequent visitor to the home of his father's girlfriend.. They often drove up on week-ends.

Originally Posted by sharon

Yep.. Some of these gated communities also use a card sort of like a metro pass and you swipe it at the gate.

Trayvon had been a frequent visitor to the home of his father's girlfriend.. They often drove up on week-ends.

That's something else to add in the "I didn't know" category pertaining to this case.

Thanks for the 411. It certainly does add to the debate.

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

That's something else to add in the "I didn't know" category pertaining to this case.

Thanks for the 411. It certainly does add to the debate.

I think the complex is about 250 units so it would be a real stretch for Zimmerman to know the faces of ALL the residents and their guests.

I think GZ just saw this kid bopping down the street on the phone and assumed he was a criminal.

I don't think 2nd degree murder can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but manslaughter can. The reason being is that we'll never know who started the altercation, but we do know why out happened.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2