Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 57 to 64 of 68

Thread: George Zimmerman not guilty.

  1. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Jolau, you cannot "debate" a fact if it is truly a fact. One can use facts to support or counter an argument. I assume this is what you meant.

    Also, I am so pleased that you know for certain someone's guilt, regardless of an outcome at trial. I'm not arguing her that OJ or Michael Jackson were innocent, just amused, once again, that you seem to find yourself the "be all" and "end all" pertaining to someone's guilt or innocence post an outcome at trial. It is laughable. I think you manufacture little tidbits in your head to support whatever argument you want to make to lead to whatever outcome you desire, then fight for this outcome like a bulldog, regardless of "facts". It is why you are obsessing so much about this neighborhood watch thing and comparing to the training you had as a night watchman somewhere (a position where I assume you were paid), not a volunteer as Zimmerman was. Remember too, that Zimmerman was not on duty as the watchman that night, he was on his way to the store, and saw something he reported suspicious, based upon recent burglaries in his neighborhood.

    Sheesh!!

    And please stop accusing mtj of making rules... she is simply frustrated with you, and likely anyone else that continues to speculate and make up things that did not transpire in the Zimmerman case.
    MC

  2. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Normally when I'm not on the job, I usually go about my business and am not particularly concerned about what is going on the job.
    If I did encounter some sort of situation like this, I would have reported it and moved on.

  3. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Post Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    And if whom you reported it to kept you on the phone for several minutes, asking questions that suggested that you should continue to watch and let them know if the suspicious person does anything else? Zimmerman claims that is what he did, that he was returning to his car when he was confronted and sucker punched. There is no evidence to refute this and, in fact, witness Rachel testified that Martin spoke forst. You just choose to believe Zimmerman is lying (even after passing the VFA and detectives who testified that they found Zimmerman credible and they felt his story matched the evidence). Instead, you dwell on your knowledge as a trained and employed watchman, comparing yourself to him, as if you really know what you would have done had you been in Zimmerman's position, were returning to your car, and been attacked. The only thing you can say is that you likely may not have had a gun. If so, perhaps you would no longer be alive.
    MC

  4. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    The 911 operator did not suggest following him.
    How would even Ms. Jantrel know that Martin spoke first? Was Martin's phone even on when the fight happened?

    If I were in Zimmerman's shoes, I would probably not have said or done anything to suggest I was threatening him, other than maybe give Martin a weird look move on. Either that or I would have watched him as discreetly as possible. Make sure I was behind him and far away, and when I am done watching him I make sure he's gone.

  5. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Post Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Listen to her testimony or read the transcript, because you don't know what you are talking about. The rest is just you spouting off again and not really considering what might happen to you if you were suddenly attacked after said person initially spoke to you. The NEN operator did not say to follow, but sometimes, it is difficult to let someone know what someone else is doing without following. Zimmerman was not a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL.. He was a volunteer, trying to be of assistance to his community.
    MC

  6. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    But he wanted to be. He had hopes of joining a police force. Doing something like this might look good on a resume/job application in the future.
    If he had hopes of joining the police or was working under an official nightwatch progarm, he should have at least familiarized himself with what was appropriate or what wasn't. That includes appropriate ways of following someone.

  7. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    14,676

    Post Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    What he "wanted to be" or had hopes of doing has NOTHING to do with the night in question, or the facts surrounding that.
    And once again, because you seem to fail to understand this, he was NOT working in an official night watch program.
    He was a VOLUNTEER in a community watch program.
    Not Neighborhood Watch, not an official night watch program, just a group of volunteer residents who were concerned about the crime in their neighborhood.

  8. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    And again I say this is what you get when you deal with a bunch of unguided ametures. Something official would have been working under the guidance of a trained professional (like a real cop).

    And as for Jantrel and evidence, as well trials should be compared: Why is it law school students can examine the same evidence and testimonies, and come up with the opposite verdict of what was determined by the actual trial? This is why trials are more about the competency of the attorneys and their ability to use evidence to strengthen their case, not the evidence itself. Obviously the evidence wasn't much to work with as a prosecuting attorney, and maybe Jantrel wasn't someone I would exactly call "witness material" whatever mistakes she made as a witness ended up helping the defense. But that is what trials are more about these days, and that is also why I don't glue myself to "trials of the year".
    But this doesn't erase the fact that how Florida defines self defense as per their "Stand Your Ground" law is designed to favor gun owners, or that Trayvon Martin has become someone to rally behind to in order to correct this.

    And if you are going to ram the evidence down my throat anyway, then why even bother to look it up myself? All I have to do is post a statement you find unfactual and you will go ramming away.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •