Is Zimmerman Guilty?

I have served on many juries as well. George was the guy on a mission to catch a burglar..

Not TM.. He was walking home from the store. So the reasonable man standard applies to George since George had a gun and had called the police.

 

Served on many Juries?

 

Nothing wrong with that, he was on watch. There is no guilt attached to that at all.

I know that. Was it reasonable for George to fear for his life? Why would it not be?, the law does not state that Travon had to have a Gun to be a threat, just his actions. If the jury believes Zimmerman was attacked first,,,he walks. Since there is no proven motive for Zimmerman to attack Travon, and it was Zimmerman with the injuries I would believe that will be their conclusion.
Travon was the attacker, George the defender......

The only way it could be seen different is if it is PROVED George attacked Travon. I doubt very much that will happen....

 

Yes.. I got called once a year for 25 years.. If I was too busy, I just called the sheriff. I have served on civil, criminal, public service commission hearings. And a few times I have been foreman.

- - - Updated - - -

Trayvon's actions? He was walking and talking on the phone.. That cannot be construed as sinister by any reasonable man standard.

 

Yes. He is guilty of assault and homicide. He is a dangerous individual who should be locked up for the safety of the community.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but you forget that he was black and wearing a hoodie... in many of the right-wings' minds, those are more than enough to justify getting out of your car to shoot.

 

If George had another fetish, he could have shot white teens or even you and I. I think he is dangerous.

 

So if your son was plugged after a man aggressively came up on him in the middle of the dark without announcing he had a gun, for seemingly no reason (in his eyes), you'd find that justifiable ? If someone grabbed you in the dark like this (I will assume), would you fight back ? Would you assume to call the police ? Or even do you find this reasonable behavior ?

 

YOu manage to leave out the part where 'your son' attacks the man

 

I will repeat what I said before. If that Jury decides Travon attacked him then YES,,George acted reasonably. This is why I told my son, your hands are weapons.

Again that jury will go by the facts, nobody grabbed Travon that can be proved, and WHO was aggressive to Travon?, can that be proved? Nobody attacked Travon, Travon had no injuries.
They will go by CLEAR FACTS..........George was injured,,,FACT,,,Travon was not,,,FACT!

They will not assume anything,,or do their best not to.

 

Actually the gunshot forensics seem to indicate that George was pulling on TM's hoodie.

 

OK if YOUR SON is scared into a fight or flight response and deems for some reason to fight, it's justifiable to shoot ? You guys are assuming that Z walked up and was just asking him questions, I would wager he provoked a fight and then shot him. It doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if I want to accept that it's OK to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

OK if YOUR SON is scared into a fight or flight response and deems for some reason to fight, it's justifiable to shoot ? You guys are assuming that Z walked up and was just asking him questions, I would wager he provoked a fight and then shot him. It doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if I want to accept that it's OK to do that.

 

Any Jury I have been on, as soon as discussion starts and people start assuming,,they are stopped. They are asked,,''Where did you hear that? Who said that?'' ''Is that a fact?''
They just do not get away with that in a Jury, it's a waste of time. We had one women that said..''Well, I just cant believe this nice person would do that''
We all FLIPPED OUT!!,,,hahahahaha. One guy told her..''Look Lady, we are here to decide on the facts presented,,,THAT'S IT!, NOT if you want to have tea with her!!!!,,,hahahaha

 

Yeah? when?,,before,,after? when? It means nothing. They were fighting, I would grab his hoodie to....

Look,,Travon could be a wonderful kid, I have no idea. The thing is, the facts are not there for him,,,nothing.

 

Wheras I would wager that Martin full of his own utter arrogant fury that some 'fat cracker' had 'dissed him' by daring to look at him decided to teach him 'a lesson'.

 

I guess we will see. I think Z bated him into a fight knowing it wasn't fair, he had NO REASON to engage the kid. Never announcing he had a gun seems dubious to me. You don't get that close to a 'perp' without doing so unless you are being attacked. Do you think that was the case? I don't. I think he got into it with the kid and out of the heat of the moment discharged his weapon. I think a jury could come to that assessment and deem him guilty of committing a crime. Plus Z has some priors which I don't know will be introduced to show character. I think they could also go your way and say well he didn't really act in the best judgement but felt his "life threatened"...

 

based on what?

 

He obviously didn't know the guy had a gun. Zimmerman's motives were what then? Why get in the kids face ? Or are you thinking Z just followed the kid and the kid decided to ape (*)(*)(*)(*) on him?

 

I do not want to speak for Sab but,,,

You have too accept it, you have no reason to think otherwise other than a assumption. You MUST back up what you are saying. You can not ''wager'' on anything in a jury room. You need proof.
Zimmerman does NOT have to prove he did not harass him,,,you do! [If you make the accusation]

 

I could imagine that if someone came out of nowhere on me, I don't know how I would react, he indirectly or purposely caused a conflict. If not why get close to him, why not announce he had a gun? I think the jury could look at that and wonder motive.

 

The inconsistencies and contradictions in George's various accounts will be there for the jury to see.. George has to counter that by taking the stand and explaining his justification. That's a problem.

 

Apparently you aren't aware of the US justice system.. lol

 

Zimmerman was not following because he was returning slowly to his car when Martin ,who had doubled back, accosted Zimmerman then attacked him.

- - - Updated - - -

You don;t think that the Prosecutor has to prove the allegation?

- - - Updated - - -

So you are just imagining a possibility then decided it was the truth?

Martin came out of nowhere to Zimmerman. Zimmerman was waiting for the Police.

 

Everything you just did was to make up your own story,,everything. A jury would confront you BIG TIME. They would say...

''You just made a lot of charges with no proof at all,,nothing? Our job is to go by what we have heard in the court room, not your theories,,follow? If we all do what you are doing we will be here until Christmas, please give us the facts you have. Do you have any facts to back up those allegations?''

I'm telling you, this is what happens. Here we get to spurt out anything, not there. If you do not listen and keep going off on your own they will just deadlock. The guy walks......

 

True. but they come up with these kinds of things all the time. I just think that it may depend on what they think was going on in Z's head and if that warrants punishment. So are you saying here that you think he will walk ?