Is Manslaughter Likely for Zimmerman?

[ttwtt78640]

The exact words are not relevant to the fact that all agree that Zimmerman had an opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and why he was following Trayvon.
he CHOSE not to...
Why would he do that?

That is a very good question, but that will likely never be asked. In GZ's version he was struck before any such question came up. I fully agree that any rational person would mention that tidbit, but GZ was not acting as "official" watchman at thhat time, he was simply on his way to the store when he noticed "suspicious" activity, and called the police NEN. Another possible reason is that GZ says that he was not armed while on his neighborhood watch "duty", perhaps that was why he declined to say that.

 

[Buck Ewer]

But would you attack that "threat"? You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to gunfight twice.

The kid was "standing his ground" against some stranger stalking him for unknown reasons, for blocks in the dark and in the rain.
If I were frightened enough, taller than the stalker and I were 17 I might have had the same reaction.
Trayvon had no idea how, or even if, this stranger following him in the dark was armed.

 

[spanky]

The exact words are not relevant to the fact that all agree that Zimmerman had an opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and why he was following Trayvon.
he CHOSE not to...
Why would he do that?

He had 4 chances.

1. When he first passed him in his car.
2. When he passed him at the mail kiosk.
3. When TM circled his car
4. When TM approached him at the T.

Why not?

 

[Oceandan]

The kid was "standing his ground" against some stranger stalking him for unknown reasons, for blocks in the dark and in the rain.
If I were frightened enough, taller than the stalker and I were 17 I might have had the same reaction.
Trayvon had no idea how, or even if, this stranger following him in the dark was armed.

How did it turn out?? Probably a better idea would have been to go straight to his father's house. I sure hope young people don't listen to the adults saying it was a good idea to ensure a physical encounter took place.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The kid was "standing his ground" against some stranger stalking him for unknown reasons, for blocks in the dark and in the rain.
If I were frightened enough, taller than the stalker and I were 17 I might have had the same reaction.
Trayvon had no idea how, or even if, this stranger following him in the dark was armed.

There you go. He had no idea why he was followed, but decided to take out that "creepy ass cracker". He stood his ground only to end up under it.

 

[Jon Slice]

Rachel's testimony used those words. Zimmerman's version was "you got a problem?"
In either case Zimmerman had a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and explain just what his problem with Trayvon's behavior was.
He chose not to, instead reaching into his pocket, soliciting the violent response I believe he was looking for.

Thanks. I had totally forgot about all that twits testimony. She's the same one that stated that an audio of "HER" stating "I couldn't know it was Trayvon" that anyone with two good ears could hear clearly, was wrong and that wasn't what she said, and we should trust her, and that they got it wrong? Who got it wrong? The audio states "I couldn't know it was Trayvon" It's a recording of her and she doesn't deny that but she wants us to believe that she didn't really say that. I do not believe a word that came out of her mouth after that exchange.

 

[Buck Ewer]

That is a very good question, but that will likely never be asked. In GZ's version he was struck before any such question came up. I fully agree that any rational person would mention that tidbit, but GZ was not acting as "official" watchman at thhat time, he was simply on his way to the store when he noticed "suspicious" activity, and called the police NEN. Another possible reason is that GZ says that he was not armed while on his neighborhood watch "duty", perhaps that was why he declined to say that.

Zimmerman's own words:
‘As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, “You got a problem?” and I said “No” and the suspect said, “You do now” and punched me in the nose.
Zimmerman could have easily said "I am with Neighborhood Watch and I was wondering what you are doing around here"..
Instead he defiantly says " No".
Why wouldn't he explain himself at that point?

 

[captainawesome]

Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?

Not convicted for getting out of bed. Convicted for killing someone.

 

[Buck Ewer]

There you go. He had no idea why he was followed, but decided to take out that "creepy ass cracker". He stood his ground only to end up under it.

I never said it was a good or prudent decision ... but it was an understandable one given his reason to be afraid and his age.

 

[Oceandan]

He had 4 chances.

1. When he first passed him in his car.
2. When he passed him at the mail kiosk.
3. When TM circled his car
4. When TM approached him at the T.

Why not?

First, I believe it has never been testified to GZ was "on a NW walk" for this incident.
Second, under what LEGAL obligation is GZ required or even obligated to identify himself in said manner?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Zimmerman's own words:
‘As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, “You got a problem?” and I said “No” and the suspect said, “You do now” and punched me in the nose.
Zimmerman could have easily said "I am with Neighborhood Watch and I was wondering what you are doing around here"..
Instead he defiantly says " No".
Why wouldn't he explain himself at that point?

Arguing over what "could have" happened is useless. I agree that GZ, or for that matter TM, could have done many things that would likely have changed events for the better. TM "could have" said "Hi, I noticed you following me from the store, I'm on my way back home now".

 

[spanky]

First, I believe it has never been testified to GZ was "on a NW walk" for this incident.
Second, under what LEGAL obligation is GZ required or even obligated to identify himself in said manner?

I don't know...seems like good Neighborhood Watching...

 

[Buck Ewer]

Thanks. I had totally forgot about all that twits testimony. She's the same one that stated that an audio of "HER" stating "I couldn't know it was Trayvon" that anyone with two good ears could hear clearly, was wrong and that wasn't what she said, and we should trust her, and that they got it wrong? Who got it wrong? The audio states "I couldn't know it was Trayvon" It's a recording of her and she doesn't deny that but she wants us to believe that she didn't really say that. I do not believe a word that came out of her mouth after that exchange.

Whether you believe one word of what she said or not ...the consensus is that Zimmerman had a chance to tell Trayvon who he was and what his concerns were and HE CHOSE NOT TO.
I maintain that he wanted a violent confrontation so he could use his gun and this one wouldn't " get away"

 

[Buck Ewer]

Arguing over what "could have" happened is useless. I agree that GZ, or for that matter TM, could have done many things that would likely have changed events for the better. TM "could have" said "Hi, I noticed you following me from the store, I'm on my way back home now".

My argument isn't that if either one reacted differently no one would have been killed. That's obvious...
My argument is that Zimmerman was trying to get a violent reaction so that he could use his gun and claim self defense.
IMHO He was baiting Trayvon.

 

[Oceandan]

I don't know...seems like good Neighborhood Watching...

Again, under what LEGAL obligation/requirement/hallucinated reason is GZ bound to identify himself in said manner?

 

[Oceandan]

Whether you believe one word of what she said or not ...the consensus is that Zimmerman had a chance to tell Trayvon who he was and what his concerns were and HE CHOSE NOT TO.
I maintain that he wanted a violent confrontation so he could use his gun and this one wouldn't " get away"

Good on ya mate, you've hallucinated a concept so you can feel better about how you view the case. You are entitled. However, it has no support from FACTS of the case and especially no LEGAL bearing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My argument isn't that if either one reacted differently no one would have been killed. That's obvious...
My argument is that Zimmerman was trying to get a violent reaction so that he could use his gun and claim self defense.
IMHO He was baiting Trayvon.

:lol: :doh "You gotta problem?" ... "You do now!" - such freindly non-threatening words, and followed by a punch no less. :roll:

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So if a person felt threatened (but really weren't in any danger at all), jumped the guy and started punching him in the face and causing lacerations on his head from the concrete, that person (who really wasn't a threat at all) should just lay there and take it for however long the guy wants to beat him up?

The same could be said of Zimmerman ... if he felt his life was in danger, but it really wasn't, did he have the right to take Trayvon's life? I believe the answer to that is no. As far as Trayvon attacking Zimmerman because he may have felt threatened, I believe that's acceptable. I don't find it acceptable for Trayvon to kill Zimmerman because he felt threatened.

 

[Buck Ewer]

I don't know...seems like good Neighborhood Watching...

I agree. First thing any plain clothes cop says in a confrontation with a suspect... "police"
The whole idea of Neighborhood Watch is to be a deterrent for potential criminals by making their presence well known.
It is a "watch and report" program not a "confront and catch" program.

 

[Josie]

The same could be said of Zimmerman ... if he felt his life was in danger, but it really wasn't, did he have the right to take Trayvon's life? I believe the answer to that is no. As far as Trayvon attacking Zimmerman because he may have felt threatened, I believe that's acceptable. I don't find it acceptable for Trayvon to kill Zimmerman because he felt threatened.

I think you're correct that GZ had no right to kill Trayvon simply because he thought he might be a threat. The problem is that Trayvon was a threat after he pinned Zimmerman to the ground and beat him up.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

He was into fighting. He thought he could take soft ole Zimmerman.

There's no evidence I'm aware of that he was "into fighting." The evidence shows he got into a couple of fights. I know of few guys who didn't get into fights in school. And there remains no evidence whatsoever beyond the word of the killer that Trayvon struck him first without Zimmerman laying a finger on him first.

 

[Buck Ewer]

:lol: :doh "You gotta problem?" ... "You do now!" - such freindly non-threatening words, and followed by a punch no less. :roll:

No one ever said the kid was friendly... But it is quite apparent that he was scared ****less.
"You Got a problem?" was a question and Zimmerman had time to respond " No" "I'm with the Neighborhood Watch " would have taken about .8 seconds longer.

 

[Oceandan]

There's no evidence I'm aware of that he was "into fighting." The evidence shows he got into a couple of fights. I know of few guys who didn't get into fights in school. And there remains no evidence whatsoever beyond the word of the killer that Trayvon struck him first without Zimmerman laying a finger on him first.

LOL I guess you're not listening to the proceedings presently happening. Turns out there was discussion even between Janteel and TM regarding fighting. Janteel apparently lied out discussing it during her deposition.

 

[Josie]

There's no evidence I'm aware of that he was "into fighting." The evidence shows he got into a couple of fights. I know of few guys who didn't get into fights in school. And there remains no evidence whatsoever beyond the word of the killer that Trayvon struck him first without Zimmerman laying a finger on him first.

There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman struck him at all. It's not about "who punched first". The ONLY one doing the punching was Martin.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

That is a very good question, but that will likely never be asked. In GZ's version he was struck before any such question came up. I fully agree that any rational person would mention that tidbit, but GZ was not acting as "official" watchman at thhat time, he was simply on his way to the store when he noticed "suspicious" activity, and called the police NEN. Another possible reason is that GZ says that he was not armed while on his neighborhood watch "duty", perhaps that was why he declined to say that.

The part I highlighted is not true. There is no time a NW volunteer is on or off. They are taught to be aware of suspicious activities in their neighborhood and to call for police should they see something suspicious. That's exactly what Zimmerman did, therefore, he was acting as an official NW member. Being a member of a NW program doesn't mean you're on duty ... it means you can be in your home, you can be walking your dog, you can be driving to the store ... you are to be the eyes and ears of the police -- if you see something suspicious, call it in and let the police do their job.

And above all, observe from a safe location. Don't enter an area in the dark where you saw someone you think is a criminal on drugs flee to.