trayvan martin

[doc111]

Because most don't. No ones saying this "Grower" is guilty. Look on the bright side! A cop barges into your home. You record his car and badge number. Then you call an attorney. Then you get a settlement for illegal breach. Then you take your 10K down to the hydro store and buy new gear, because your a FUCKING GROWER, but they missed ya!

MOST don't, but SOME do? So we villify anyone who has a "history"? There are a LOT of people in this thread who have made up their minds as to the guilt of Zimmerman. So, yeah, some are saying this "grower" is guilty! We have due process in this country, not mob rule. Thank Fuck for that! lol!

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Your'e missing the point........I'm sure you get EXACTLY what I'm saying here. You're a smart guy aren't you? I'm talking about what a lot of people are doing in this thread......convicting Zimmerman absent all the evidence and facts. Some of you are talking as if you were there! I was not, so I won't cast judgement. Things sometimes are different than they appear on the surface. I was trying to illustrate this with my hypothetical. How would you feel if every time there was a "suspicious odor" or a "noise" or "strange lights" coming from your residence, that your neighbors called the police on you and they came to harass you? Whether they have a warrant or not is immaterial. My point stands that if you have a "history" of growing, should you be entitled to due process? How would you feel? This is obviously futile to try to talk any sense into you guys. You obviously have your mind made up and KNOW exactly what went down. I sincerely hope you are never found "guilty" of some crime simply because you had a "history". Because that's EXACTLY what some people in this thread are saying!

if the shoe fits then wear it . . . .cops do the sleuthing not neighborhood watch!

when history repeats itself and some one is dead . .. responsibility lies in the person unable to control there psychosis-psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).

Psychotic symptoms may include:

• Disorganized thought and speech
• False beliefs that are not based in reality (delusions), especially unfounded fear or suspicion
• Hearing, seeing, or feeling things that are not there (hallucinations)
• Thoughts that "jump" between unrelated topics (disordered thinking)
  
  
  
  we will see how sane this man is . .. . . . . i think he has issues . . . . .when he takes the stand . . . . .if he is at all imcompetent it will be apparent . . .. but imo being conisdred a mental would be a better fate then convicted for murder. . . . . in the end his actions imo are neglegent leading to someones uneeded and premature death how competent he is to make right and wrong descision is yet to be seen the more competent he is the more question will arise why he wasnt in his truck and why he chose to follow martin and what was his intent at confronting him when he knew the police on there way

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Main Entry:	follow  [fol-oh] Show IPA
Part of Speech:	verb
Definition:	take the place of
Synonyms:	be subsequent to, chase, come after, come from, come next, displace, ensue, go after, go next, postdate, proceed from, pursue, replace, result, spring from, succeed, supersede, supervene, supplant
Notes:	follow means to travel behind, go after, or come after; succeed means to come next in time or succession, follow after another or to attain success, reach a goal
Antonyms:	neglect, pass over, shun, slight

cliff man give it up . . . . .denial much?

 

[doc111]

if the shoe fits then wear it . . . .cops do the sleuthing not neighborhood watch!

when history repeats itself and some one is dead . .. responsibility lies in the person unable to control there psychosis-psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).

Oh, so you ARE a psychiatrist!!!!! lmfao!!!!!!! More ASSumptions? What do cops "sleuthing" have to do with this? Neighborhood watches have been around for a long time and are not illegal. They serve an important role in taking an active part in keeping neighborhoods crime free and safe. Nobody knows their neighborhood better than the people who live there. The police rarely prevent crimes, they simply react to them. The goal of a neighborhood watch is to do exactly that.....watch for suspicious people and things in order to prevent or deter crime. Maybe he is paranoid, I can't say, I haven't evaluated his mental state. This went wrong somewhere, somehow. The people who defend Zimmerman say he acted in self defense because Trayvon attacked him first and he defended himself. The people who are defending Trayvon say he was followed, confronted and murdered in cold blood. I'm defending neither BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE!!!!!! Certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence but as we've already seen, neither side has a slam dunk here. There's not much more depressing than the death of a child. I know this because I spent a career dealing with this nearly every single day! I still have issues to this day because of some of the things I dealt with. It sucks, I get that. I'm also a father so I can empathize. Nothing will bring this kid back though. Hopefully, everyone can learn from this and not do stupid things, like confront possibly armed strangers. We all have to live (or die) with the choices we make. Make better choices. That's the lesson to be taken from this whole tragedy IMO.

 

[afrawfraw]

MOST don't, but SOME do? So we villify anyone who has a "history"? There are a LOT of people in this thread who have made up their minds as to the guilt of Zimmerman. So, yeah, some are saying this "grower" is guilty! We have due process in this country, not mob rule. Thank Fuck for that! lol!

Wrong, not guilty. What Zimmerman did was wrong! Sorry if you don't see that! And guilt is decided at trial, not at the scene of a killing. So this "Grower" would be searched arrested, charges possibly filed, and dropped. This is the justice system. If arrests and searches don't matter, why does EVERY Law Enforcement agency keep records of "Known persons" and arrests? Hmmmm.

And this isn't ONE incident. Zimmy has been plagued for a while now. I think daddy stuck his finger in Zimmy's butt. Seriously though, would you let Zimm watch your kid? Mow your lawn? Check your mail? House sit? Rake leaves? Vacuum?

I didn't think so.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

MOST don't, but SOME do? So we villify anyone who has a "history"? There are a LOT of people in this thread who have made up their minds as to the guilt of Zimmerman. So, yeah, some are saying this "grower" is guilty! We have due process in this country, not mob rule. Thank Fuck for that! lol!

"the grower" dispalyed not only concerns of "growing" but in his own words he has implicated himself in "growing"

reality is he was "growing" another reality is he may or may not be able to be convicted by a court of "conspiracy or intent to produce and distribute"

 

[cliffey501]

Main Entry:	follow  [fol-oh] Show IPA
Part of Speech:	verb
Definition:	take the place of
Synonyms:	be subsequent to, chase, come after, come from, come next, displace, ensue, go after, go next, postdate, proceed from, pursue, replace, result, spring from, succeed, supersede, supervene, supplant
Notes:	follow means to travel behind, go after, or come after; succeed means to come next in time or succession, follow after another or to attain success, reach a goal
Antonyms:	neglect, pass over, shun, slight

cliff man give it up . . . . .denial much?

Well the cops have followed me quite a few times but they have never pursued me.See how that works.

 

[afrawfraw]

OOOOHH! I get it. When the 911 operater told Zimmy NOT TO FOLLOW HIM, he must have logged on to his twitter account and dropped TM. Then he wanted the cops to call him so he could tell them where he was, in a tweat. Sorry guys, I was confused as to the facts of the case.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Oh, so you ARE a psychiatrist!!!!! lmfao!!!!!!! More ASSumptions? What do cops "sleuthing" have to do with this? Neighborhood watches have been around for a long time and are not illegal. They serve an important role in taking an active part in keeping neighborhoods crime free and safe. Nobody knows their neighborhood better than the people who live there. The police rarely prevent crimes, they simply react to them. The goal of a neighborhood watch is to do exactly that.....watch for suspicious people and things in order to prevent or deter crime. Maybe he is paranoid, I can't say, I haven't evaluated his mental state. This went wrong somewhere, somehow. The people who defend Zimmerman say he acted in self defense because Trayvon attacked him first and he defended himself. The people who are defending Trayvon say he was followed, confronted and murdered in cold blood. I'm defending neither BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE!!!!!! Certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence but as we've already seen, neither side has a slam dunk here. There's not much more depressing than the death of a child. I know this because I spent a career dealing with this nearly every single day! I still have issues to this day because of some of the things I dealt with. It sucks, I get that. I'm also a father so I can empathize. Nothing will bring this kid back though. Hopefully, everyone can learn from this and not do stupid things, like confront possibly armed strangers. We all have to live (or die) with the choices we make. Make better choices. That's the lesson to be taken from this whole tragedy IMO.

you may think its funny but the markers for his issues are clear .. . . . . . now what remains to be proven is if he was forced to kill or initiated the confrontation . . .. . but his mental issues will definitely come up as to his frame of mind at the time of the call to the police to the second he shot him . .. . . . . . . .murder 2 still seems like a stretch to me . . .. .manslaughter makes more sense . .. . . .he intended stop martin from leaving till cops came there and or keep tabs on him . . . if Z was a cold blooded killer there would have been no scuffle .. the gun would have been out from the get go

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Well the cops have followed me quite a few times but they have never pursued me.See how that works.

you see thats the difference right there. . . .. . those cops didnt want to pull you over. . . . . Z had his intent to follow/pursue and was as he got out of his vehicle and continued to go after martin

i dont think he intended to confront him . . .if thats what you think i mean by pursue im just using it in its literal sense no hidden agenda, he chose to exit the vehicle and follow/pursue/go after martin . . . . .

 

[cliffey501]

you see thats the difference right there. . . .. . those cops didnt want to pull you over. . . . . Z had his intent to follow/pursue and was as he got out of his vehicle and continued to go after martin

i dont think he intended to confront him . . .if thats what you think i mean by pursue im just using it in its literal sense no hidden agenda, he chose to exit the vehicle and follow/pursue/go after martin . . . . .

If that were the case he would have went towards the back entrance.That were martin was supposedly running.

My guess would be martin ran south(towards his home and back entrance) either down the street or in behind the town homes.I would also bet it was more likely he ran behind the town homes because zimmerman got out of his truck to see where he was going.If he had ran down the street zim would have stayed in his car.He supposedly pursues for roughly 20 seconds before being told not to.By now im guessing zims in the cut threw.He has also lost trayvon by this point.Zim thinks he's going for the back entrance so he proceeds through the cut threw.So he can get a visual at the back entance(located behind trayvons home).He stands there while completing the 911 call so that he can report if he gets a visual on the suspect on the back gate.On his way back to his truck trayvon comes north up the walkway and confronts zim.

 

[doc111]

Wrong, not guilty. What Zimmerman did was wrong! Sorry if you don't see that! And guilt is decided at trial, not at the scene of a killing. So this "Grower" would be searched arrested, charges possibly filed, and dropped. This is the justice system. If arrests and searches don't matter, why does EVERY Law Enforcement agency keep records of "Known persons" and arrests? Hmmmm.

And this isn't ONE incident. Zimmy has been plagued for a while now. I think daddy stuck his finger in Zimmy's butt. Seriously though, would you let Zimm watch your kid? Mow your lawn? Check your mail? House sit? Rake leaves? Vacuum?

I didn't think so.

Nobody can be sure WHAT Zimmerman did, so how can you ASSume he was in the wrong (which would make him guilty)? I never said that arrest records were irrelevant. I don't think that past arrests mean a person is guilty of a crime in the present. Why do prior arrests and sometimes even convictions often get suppressed at a trial? I'll give you a minute to think about this question. Be careful! lol!

 

[doc111]

A SANDOVAL hearing is to prevent the prosecutor from using your criminal record to impeach your credibility on cross-examination, if you testify at trial. When a witness testifies at trial, opposing counsel has the right to use the witness' criminal record on cross-examination to impeach their testimony. If the witness is the defendant, the court must balance their constitutional right to testify against the prosecutor's right to use this cross-examination technique. The problem here is that some jurors may believe that if you've committed crimes in the past, you probably committed this one too, and that is certainly not one of the factors a jury is supposed to consider as evidence.

http://www.allencowling.com/false04B.htm

 

[Harrekin]

Nobody can be sure WHAT Zimmerman did, so how can you ASSume he was in the wrong (which would make him guilty)? I never said that arrest records were irrelevant. I don't think that past arrests mean a person is guilty of a crime in the present. Why do prior arrests and sometimes even convictions often get suppressed at a trial? I'll give you a minute to think about this question. Be careful! lol!

Maybe they should even just give the death penalty to people arrested with priors? We all KNOW they're guilty cos they have priors and we clearly don't need evidence, so maybe just make the system more efficient...since there's no presumption of innocence anymore for people with priors

Btw lol@the guy a few pages back whining that Zimmerman shot Martin and its so wrong to kill someone, but then in the same post says he'd shoot someone who broke into his house cos its "his right". Fuck HI-LARIOUS some of you people, you must sweat hypocrisy from your pores.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

If that were the case he would have went towards the back entrance.That were martin was supposedly running.

My guess would be martin ran south(towards his home and back entrance) either down the street or in behind the town homes.I would also bet it was more likely he ran behind the town homes because zimmerman got out of his truck to see where he was going.If he had ran down the street zim would have stayed in his car.He supposedly pursues for roughly 20 seconds before being told not to.By now im guessing zims in the cut threw.He has also lost trayvon by this point.Zim thinks he's going for the back entrance so he proceeds through the cut threw.So he can get a visual at the back entance(located behind trayvons home).He stands there while completing the 911 call so that he can report if he gets a visual on the suspect on the back gate.On his way back to his truck trayvon comes north up the walkway and confronts zim.

ok that might be, the truck was north end and the back enterance was south by martins destination Z would have passed him on his way north up the cuaseway and yes martin asked z why he was following him so that would make sense . . .but Z came from the south to the north toward his truck . . . . and like i said never intended imo to physicallly or verbally confront martin, i agree keeping tabs on location was his reason . . but none the less he left his truck and pursued contributing to the situation . . . if confronting martinwas never a possibility for zimmerman he would have drove down the street and parked along the east/west street leadingto the exit? but he choose to get out of his vehicle and pursue . .. . confrontation not intened but excepted as a possibility . . and thats not accpetable to me seeing that martin was doing nothing wrong excpet fit the desrciption to Z of the evil doers

. .Z had a history or violence how do you assume martin attacked him when it is just as easilly possible martin said some smartass things to z and Z didnt like it and attacked martin or tried to restrain him, citizens arrest style . .. .which would make sense with the story of a scuffle and Z on martin right after the gun shoot and z's history of rage and control issues(ie the boucing and the secerity job issues)

the trial is going to be interesting

 

[Harrekin]

ok that might be, the truck was north end and the back enterance was south by martins destination they Z would have passed him and yes martin asked z why he was following him so that would make sense . . .but he came from the south to the north toward his truck . . . . and like i said never intended imo to physicallly or verbally confront martin, i agree keeping tabs on location was his reason . . but none the less he left his truck and pursued contributing to the situation . . . . .Z had a history or violence how do you assume martin attacked him when it is just as easilly possible martin said some smart things to z and Z didnt like it and attacked martin or tried to restrian him, citizens arrest style . .. .which would make sense with the story of a scuffle and Z on martin right after the gun shoot

the trial is going to be interesting

Nah it's gonna be quite a open and closed case, the prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of violating the terms of SYG.

How do you prove something beyond a reasonable doubt when the only person alive afterwards says it happened differently and there's no physical evidence except what Zimmerman is using as a defence (cuts, bruises, etc)?

Even if the cops KNEW Zimmerman was a total psycho fruit loop who executed Martin(Im not implying he actually is/did or isn't/didn't), they couldn't go near him without evidence.

Its funny to see people react when someone in an armed society with like 5 guns per man, woman and child gets shot. Eh, DUH!

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

http://www.allencowling.com/false04B.htm[/COLOR]

he was never convicted it is public record and imo completely legal to use? anythoughts . . .. . and yes ppast crimes.transgrasion are not proof of current charges . . in any way . . . but in my opinion properly used past crimes/transgration only need to show motive or mindset

does the motive or mindset of the individual with some schizo tendencies relevant to show a pattern of behavior that supports their version of what Zimmerman was doing out there?

and your quote doesnt say they wont do it it just say it has to be done with class(balance kinda vague as a balance can be meet a number of ways doesnt exactly mean 50/50) as to not sway juror's with what ifs and hypotheticals . . ..

 

[cliffey501]

ok that might be, the truck was north end and the back enterance was south by martins destination Z would have passed him on his way north up the cuaseway and yes martin asked z why he was following him so that would make sense . . .but Z came from the south to the north toward his truck . . . . and like i said never intended imo to physicallly or verbally confront martin, i agree keeping tabs on location was his reason . . but none the less he left his truck and pursued contributing to the situation . . .

. .Z had a history or violence how do you assume martin attacked him when it is just as easilly possible martin said some smartass things to z and Z didnt like it and attacked martin or tried to restrain him, citizens arrest style . .. .which would make sense with the story of a scuffle and Z on martin right after the gun shoot and z's history of rage and control issues(ie the boucing and the secerity job issues)

the trial is going to be interesting

I already said what i thought happened about 100 pages back now.My point Im making here is that zimmerman didnt pursue him.I think personally he went to see if martin was going to run out the back gate.On the way back to his truck martin confronts him about being watched/followed/whatever zimmerman goes to grab his phone and call police.As he goes for his phone he mistakenly exposes his gun(these are things im putting together in my own mind).Trayvon sees the gun and reacts(hitting him climbing ontop of him).Zimmerman not realizing he's exposed his gun takes this as an unprovoked attack and fires in self defence.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Nah it's gonna be quite a open and closed case, the prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of violating the terms of SYG.

How do you prove something beyond a reasonable doubt when the only person alive afterwards says it happened differently and there's no physical evidence except what Zimmerman is using as a defence (cuts, bruises, etc)?

Even if the cops KNEW Zimmerman was a total psycho fruit loop who executed Martin(Im not implying he actually is/did or isn't/didn't), they couldn't go near him without evidence.

Its funny to see people react when someone in an armed society with like 5 guns per man, woman and child gets shot. Eh, DUH!

murder 2 does seem like its gonna be a hard one to get . .. . . . . . .just because it is inevitable doesnt make it ok . . . . . . .

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

I already said what i thought happened about 100 pages back now.My point Im making here is that zimmerman didnt pursue him.I think personally he went to see if martin was going to run out the back gate.On the way back to his truck martin confronts him about being watched/followed/whatever zimmerman goes to grab his phone and call police.As he goes for his phone he mistakenly exposes his gun(these are things im putting together in my own mind).Trayvon sees the gun and reacts(hitting him climbing ontop of him).Zimmerman not realizing he's exposed his gun takes this as an unprovoked attack and fires in self defence.

what if he saw the gun becuase Z pulled it out and while pointing the gun at him says stay where you are .. .. . . . . . . .he wasnt a cop martin knew that

my flight or flight would make me hit him too and i might be dead . . . . . .wouldnt change the agressor in the situation

i would definitely feel cornered if someone kinda tracked me down after i specifically ran off . . .away from them . .. imo signs that martin was trying to get awawy from a precieved threat . . . . . . and that threat was Z ..

mistakes on both sides but Martin is dead . . . . . . is it just oh well hes dead the other doesnt need to be repsonsible for his part in it?