Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Spin OFF If Zimmerman was dead what would your verdict be.

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: Verdict

Options:

Guilty and voted Zimmerman guilty on other poll

Not guilty and voted Zimmerman guilty on other poll

Guilty and voted Zimmerman not guilty on other poll

Not Guilty and voted Zimmerman not guilty


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 57

View Results

So you have seen the trail. If all the info was the same except for Trayvon DID get Zimmerman's gun and shoot him. Claimed Zimmerman attacked him and they were fighting for the gun. What would vote in self defense verdict for Trayvon?

Please explain what evidence would lead you to your conclusion. 





 Jaliyah  My video here

by on Jul. 11, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Replies (41-50):
macbudsmom
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:02 PM
1 mom liked this
GZ admits to following TM. He admits to going for his phone which wasnt wear it usually was. Which TM could have thought was him going for a gun. So at that point TM says shit this guys serious and punches him hard in the face in an effort to save himself. When GZ was down and TM saw the gun which confirmed his worst fears he said ok I gotta knock this guy out or I am gonna die. Unfortunately he wasnt able to do so amd his worst fear happened the stranger following him shot him in cold blood.


Quoting TruthSeeker.:

 


Quoting ReginaStar:




Quoting TruthSeeker.:


 Who attacked who? If Trayvon was still the attacker and took Zimmermans gun and shot Zimmerman, I'd say Trayvon would be guilty of manslaughter.


You are assuming TM is the attacker rather than defending himself. Can I ask you. What evidence has been provided for you to assume that TM actually attacked GZ opposed to GZ being the initiator?


  Is it your belief that TM did not attack GZ? The evidence, from the little that I've read, would be the trajectory of the shot with GZ being beneath TM and the back of GZ head being sliced open. If it happened as GM says and he was attacked first in this scenario I would say "if" it happened this way that TM would be guilty of manslaughter.


  What do you believe happened? Do you believe GZ shot TM in cold blood? Do you believe GM was the aggressor and attacked first and only pulled his weapon when he was getting his butt kicked?


  I've not watched the trial so I only have the reporting from the immediate days following the incident and what little I've read on CM and other news sites about it. If you have other information that supports GZ being the attacker I'd love to hear about it.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
DusterMommy
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:04 PM
His non-criminal actions caused TM to feel threatened and ultimately start a fight. Neither of them had done anything illegal (that we know of on TMs part) up until the moment that their tragic misunderstanding led to a physical confrontation. Either of them could've made decisions to avoid the outcome - but neither of them were technically in the wrong.

He should not be punished for mistakes that were perfectly legal, and which he had no idea would lead to a death.


Quoting macbudsmom:

Yeah dont get that at all. His actions caused the death of a teen. He needs to be held accountable. I fear he wont be.




Quoting DusterMommy:

Oh, well we disagree there. I don't think GZ is guilty.






Quoting macbudsmom:

Yes its an effed up law. Legally he could technically be found innocent of murder... Morally he will suffer consequences.








Quoting DusterMommy:

^ Of course, now that someone told me that in FL someone can initiate a fight and then kill in self defense...NONE of what I said originally matters.




macbudsmom
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM
1 mom liked this
A kid walking to his dads... Oh yes very suspicious... Have you looked at the reports stating GM has made numerous inappropriate calls to dispatch prior to this incident.


Quoting DusterMommy:

Actually, my thoughts have nothing to do with being a gun carrier. I'm a 911 dispatcher, and having had experience with people reporting suspicious persons (or crimes) I see his behaviors and reactions as completely typical. I've dealt with numerous calls that begin similarly - all the way down to the caller pursuing the suspect. Luckily, I've never had one end so tragically.




Quoting Sisteract:

 You're a gun carrier, right?



If so, I can see why you believe the way that you do.



For those of us not packing 24/7, we find GZ's behaviors and decisions reckless and irresponsible. He put lives in dangers just because he decided this kid was another asshole, and this asshole was not going to get away.



It borders on vigilantism if you ask me.



Quoting DusterMommy:

It doesn't really matter either way because there is also not proof that GZ initiated contact.

Personally, I find GZs story both believable and somewhat understandable.




Quoting ReginaStar:



But "WHY" would anyone believe that TM initiated contact with GZ? You would think for anyone to believe that it would be based on some type of prof or motive. If not the scenario should not be "believed" to be accurate. 



Quoting DusterMommy:

No. I'm actually taking about the general belief that TM initiated physical contact. There is much dissension over who confronted whom, or how much damage was being done to GZ (not that it matters one iota) but I honestly haven't heard anyone claim that GZ punched TM to the ground first or something.







Quoting ReginaStar:



From my understanding the general belief you speak of is whether or not TM was banging his head into the ground. That doesn't mean he initiated the fight. The evidence does provide prof that Zimmerman had motive. He called the cops on an innocent by standard, he followed him. TM ran FROM him. Zimmerman had reason to assault TM. He was accusing him of wrong doing and wanted the police to get him before he was able to run away. 



Quoting DusterMommy:

I didn't say proof, I said general belief. I've yet to hear anyone seriously argue that GZ attacked/tackled/punched TM first... which lends to my thoughts that everyone is on board with the idea that TM was the initial aggressor.










Quoting ReginaStar:



Yes but not every single bit. If I missed this please tell me where I can find this b/c I have not seen prof that he attacked him. 



Quoting DusterMommy:

Watched any of the trial?













Quoting ReginaStar:






Quoting DusterMommy:

Well, first of all if it were reversed, we most likely wouldn't even know about it.









I voted guilty, even though I think GZ is not guilty. If EVERYTHING ELSE were the same, then the general belief would still be that TM threw the first punch. You can't start a fight and then kill in self defense.


Why would the general belief be that TM was the attacker? Where is the prof of this?






















 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
DusterMommy
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:11 PM
1 mom liked this
Who considers them inappropriate? I'm a dispatcher, and of the calls I've seen of his, none of them were inappropriate. Excessive? Maybe, but they make sense if he was neighborhood watch and committed to cleaning up his neighborhood. "Suspicious" behavior is subjective. Personally, if I lived in an area fraught with burglaries, and I saw someone walking, at night, in the rain, acting off ("like he was on drugs") and perhaps looking at houses I would be suspicious, too.


Quoting macbudsmom:

A kid walking to his dads... Oh yes very suspicious... Have you looked at the reports stating GM has made numerous inappropriate calls to dispatch prior to this incident.




Quoting DusterMommy:

Actually, my thoughts have nothing to do with being a gun carrier. I'm a 911 dispatcher, and having had experience with people reporting suspicious persons (or crimes) I see his behaviors and reactions as completely typical. I've dealt with numerous calls that begin similarly - all the way down to the caller pursuing the suspect. Luckily, I've never had one end so tragically.






Quoting Sisteract:

 You're a gun carrier, right?




If so, I can see why you believe the way that you do.




For those of us not packing 24/7, we find GZ's behaviors and decisions reckless and irresponsible. He put lives in dangers just because he decided this kid was another asshole, and this asshole was not going to get away.




It borders on vigilantism if you ask me.




Quoting DusterMommy:

It doesn't really matter either way because there is also not proof that GZ initiated contact.

Personally, I find GZs story both believable and somewhat understandable.





Quoting ReginaStar:




But "WHY" would anyone believe that TM initiated contact with GZ? You would think for anyone to believe that it would be based on some type of prof or motive. If not the scenario should not be "believed" to be accurate. 




Quoting DusterMommy:

No. I'm actually taking about the general belief that TM initiated physical contact. There is much dissension over who confronted whom, or how much damage was being done to GZ (not that it matters one iota) but I honestly haven't heard anyone claim that GZ punched TM to the ground first or something.








Quoting ReginaStar:




From my understanding the general belief you speak of is whether or not TM was banging his head into the ground. That doesn't mean he initiated the fight. The evidence does provide prof that Zimmerman had motive. He called the cops on an innocent by standard, he followed him. TM ran FROM him. Zimmerman had reason to assault TM. He was accusing him of wrong doing and wanted the police to get him before he was able to run away. 




Quoting DusterMommy:

I didn't say proof, I said general belief. I've yet to hear anyone seriously argue that GZ attacked/tackled/punched TM first... which lends to my thoughts that everyone is on board with the idea that TM was the initial aggressor.











Quoting ReginaStar:




Yes but not every single bit. If I missed this please tell me where I can find this b/c I have not seen prof that he attacked him. 




Quoting DusterMommy:

Watched any of the trial?














Quoting ReginaStar:








Quoting DusterMommy:

Well, first of all if it were reversed, we most likely wouldn't even know about it.









I voted guilty, even though I think GZ is not guilty. If EVERYTHING ELSE were the same, then the general belief would still be that TM threw the first punch. You can't start a fight and then kill in self defense.



Why would the general belief be that TM was the attacker? Where is the prof of this?


























 




macbudsmom
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM
If Zimmerman didnt feel TM was a threat why did he call the cops and follow him then. If he honestly felt TM was the person committing the break ins it would be reasonable to suggest that GZ believed the situation could turn bad quickly.
And your bias is showing when you say neither of them did anything illegal (well that we know of on Trayvon's part). Why cant you say the same about GZ? You think we should just take him at his word? He and his wife lied about their finances why wouldnt they lie about bigger things?




Quoting DusterMommy:

His non-criminal actions caused TM to feel threatened and ultimately start a fight. Neither of them had done anything illegal (that we know of on TMs part) up until the moment that their tragic misunderstanding led to a physical confrontation. Either of them could've made decisions to avoid the outcome - but neither of them were technically in the wrong.



He should not be punished for mistakes that were perfectly legal, and which he had no idea would lead to a death.




Quoting macbudsmom:

Yeah dont get that at all. His actions caused the death of a teen. He needs to be held accountable. I fear he wont be.






Quoting DusterMommy:

Oh, well we disagree there. I don't think GZ is guilty.








Quoting macbudsmom:

Yes its an effed up law. Legally he could technically be found innocent of murder... Morally he will suffer consequences.










Quoting DusterMommy:

^ Of course, now that someone told me that in FL someone can initiate a fight and then kill in self defense...NONE of what I said originally matters.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
beinghuman
by Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Then it would be a black guy shooting a Mexican, and wouldn't be in the news

Della529
by Matlock on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:16 PM

 Who told you that?  They are wrong.

This is what the Dept. of Consumer Services had on it's website until just after this happened last year.  I wouldn't have it if it weren't for the WaybackMachine.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101218164020/http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Quoting MamaJess9:

Actually, under Florida law you can. That's what's fucked up about it, and why Zimmerman will walk. Because even if they could prove HE threw the first punch and attacked Trayvon, if the jury believes he thought T was going to kill him, he can get off on self defense.

Quoting DusterMommy:

Well, first of all if it were reversed, we most likely wouldn't even know about it.



I voted guilty, even though I think GZ is not guilty. If EVERYTHING ELSE were the same, then the general belief would still be that TM threw the first punch. You can't start a fight and then kill in self defense.

 

macbudsmom
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:19 PM
GZ hasnt clarified what behaviors led him to belief TM was acting off or like he was on drugs. In my court trainings unless you can describe specifically led you to belief that it is null and void info.


Quoting DusterMommy:

Who considers them inappropriate? I'm a dispatcher, and of the calls I've seen of his, none of them were inappropriate. Excessive? Maybe, but they make sense if he was neighborhood watch and committed to cleaning up his neighborhood. "Suspicious" behavior is subjective. Personally, if I lived in an area fraught with burglaries, and I saw someone walking, at night, in the rain, acting off ("like he was on drugs") and perhaps looking at houses I would be suspicious, too.




Quoting macbudsmom:

A kid walking to his dads... Oh yes very suspicious... Have you looked at the reports stating GM has made numerous inappropriate calls to dispatch prior to this incident.






Quoting DusterMommy:

Actually, my thoughts have nothing to do with being a gun carrier. I'm a 911 dispatcher, and having had experience with people reporting suspicious persons (or crimes) I see his behaviors and reactions as completely typical. I've dealt with numerous calls that begin similarly - all the way down to the caller pursuing the suspect. Luckily, I've never had one end so tragically.








Quoting Sisteract:

 You're a gun carrier, right?





If so, I can see why you believe the way that you do.





For those of us not packing 24/7, we find GZ's behaviors and decisions reckless and irresponsible. He put lives in dangers just because he decided this kid was another asshole, and this asshole was not going to get away.





It borders on vigilantism if you ask me.





Quoting DusterMommy:

It doesn't really matter either way because there is also not proof that GZ initiated contact.

Personally, I find GZs story both believable and somewhat understandable.






Quoting ReginaStar:





But "WHY" would anyone believe that TM initiated contact with GZ? You would think for anyone to believe that it would be based on some type of prof or motive. If not the scenario should not be "believed" to be accurate. 





Quoting DusterMommy:

No. I'm actually taking about the general belief that TM initiated physical contact. There is much dissension over who confronted whom, or how much damage was being done to GZ (not that it matters one iota) but I honestly haven't heard anyone claim that GZ punched TM to the ground first or something.









Quoting ReginaStar:





From my understanding the general belief you speak of is whether or not TM was banging his head into the ground. That doesn't mean he initiated the fight. The evidence does provide prof that Zimmerman had motive. He called the cops on an innocent by standard, he followed him. TM ran FROM him. Zimmerman had reason to assault TM. He was accusing him of wrong doing and wanted the police to get him before he was able to run away. 





Quoting DusterMommy:

I didn't say proof, I said general belief. I've yet to hear anyone seriously argue that GZ attacked/tackled/punched TM first... which lends to my thoughts that everyone is on board with the idea that TM was the initial aggressor.












Quoting ReginaStar:





Yes but not every single bit. If I missed this please tell me where I can find this b/c I have not seen prof that he attacked him. 





Quoting DusterMommy:

Watched any of the trial?















Quoting ReginaStar:










Quoting DusterMommy:

Well, first of all if it were reversed, we most likely wouldn't even know about it.









I voted guilty, even though I think GZ is not guilty. If EVERYTHING ELSE were the same, then the general belief would still be that TM threw the first punch. You can't start a fight and then kill in self defense.




Why would the general belief be that TM was the attacker? Where is the prof of this?






























 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
DusterMommy
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM
What I'm saying is:

On GZs part, carrying a gun wasn't illegal, getting out of his truck wasn't illegal, and following TM want illegal.

On TMs part, we have no idea what he was doing up until the moment he ran from GZ. He could've been engaged in illegal activities. My point is, we don't know because we don't have his side.


Quoting macbudsmom:

If Zimmerman didnt feel TM was a threat why did he call the cops and follow him then. If he honestly felt TM was the person committing the break ins it would be reasonable to suggest that GZ believed the situation could turn bad quickly.

And your bias is showing when you say neither of them did anything illegal (well that we know of on Trayvon's part). Why cant you say the same about GZ? You think we should just take him at his word? He and his wife lied about their finances why wouldnt they lie about bigger things?








Quoting DusterMommy:

His non-criminal actions caused TM to feel threatened and ultimately start a fight. Neither of them had done anything illegal (that we know of on TMs part) up until the moment that their tragic misunderstanding led to a physical confrontation. Either of them could've made decisions to avoid the outcome - but neither of them were technically in the wrong.





He should not be punished for mistakes that were perfectly legal, and which he had no idea would lead to a death.






Quoting macbudsmom:

Yeah dont get that at all. His actions caused the death of a teen. He needs to be held accountable. I fear he wont be.








Quoting DusterMommy:

Oh, well we disagree there. I don't think GZ is guilty.










Quoting macbudsmom:

Yes its an effed up law. Legally he could technically be found innocent of murder... Morally he will suffer consequences.












Quoting DusterMommy:

^ Of course, now that someone told me that in FL someone can initiate a fight and then kill in self defense...NONE of what I said originally matters.






DusterMommy
by Bronze Member on Jul. 11, 2013 at 7:23 PM
1 mom liked this
You can think whatever the hell you want to is suspicious - that's why it is subjective and why in my County, we encourage people to report behavior they find suspicious. They report it, the cops check it out. Sometimes it's nothing, sometimes crimes are prevented.


Quoting macbudsmom:

GZ hasnt clarified what behaviors led him to belief TM was acting off or like he was on drugs. In my court trainings unless you can describe specifically led you to belief that it is null and void info.




Quoting DusterMommy:

Who considers them inappropriate? I'm a dispatcher, and of the calls I've seen of his, none of them were inappropriate. Excessive? Maybe, but they make sense if he was neighborhood watch and committed to cleaning up his neighborhood. "Suspicious" behavior is subjective. Personally, if I lived in an area fraught with burglaries, and I saw someone walking, at night, in the rain, acting off ("like he was on drugs") and perhaps looking at houses I would be suspicious, too.






Quoting macbudsmom:

A kid walking to his dads... Oh yes very suspicious... Have you looked at the reports stating GM has made numerous inappropriate calls to dispatch prior to this incident.








Quoting DusterMommy:

Actually, my thoughts have nothing to do with being a gun carrier. I'm a 911 dispatcher, and having had experience with people reporting suspicious persons (or crimes) I see his behaviors and reactions as completely typical. I've dealt with numerous calls that begin similarly - all the way down to the caller pursuing the suspect. Luckily, I've never had one end so tragically.










Quoting Sisteract:

 You're a gun carrier, right?






If so, I can see why you believe the way that you do.






For those of us not packing 24/7, we find GZ's behaviors and decisions reckless and irresponsible. He put lives in dangers just because he decided this kid was another asshole, and this asshole was not going to get away.






It borders on vigilantism if you ask me.






Quoting DusterMommy:

It doesn't really matter either way because there is also not proof that GZ initiated contact.

Personally, I find GZs story both believable and somewhat understandable.







Quoting ReginaStar:






But "WHY" would anyone believe that TM initiated contact with GZ? You would think for anyone to believe that it would be based on some type of prof or motive. If not the scenario should not be "believed" to be accurate. 






Quoting DusterMommy:

No. I'm actually taking about the general belief that TM initiated physical contact. There is much dissension over who confronted whom, or how much damage was being done to GZ (not that it matters one iota) but I honestly haven't heard anyone claim that GZ punched TM to the ground first or something.










Quoting ReginaStar:






From my understanding the general belief you speak of is whether or not TM was banging his head into the ground. That doesn't mean he initiated the fight. The evidence does provide prof that Zimmerman had motive. He called the cops on an innocent by standard, he followed him. TM ran FROM him. Zimmerman had reason to assault TM. He was accusing him of wrong doing and wanted the police to get him before he was able to run away. 






Quoting DusterMommy:

I didn't say proof, I said general belief. I've yet to hear anyone seriously argue that GZ attacked/tackled/punched TM first... which lends to my thoughts that everyone is on board with the idea that TM was the initial aggressor.













Quoting ReginaStar:






Yes but not every single bit. If I missed this please tell me where I can find this b/c I have not seen prof that he attacked him. 






Quoting DusterMommy:

Watched any of the trial?
















Quoting ReginaStar:












Quoting DusterMommy:

Well, first of all if it were reversed, we most likely wouldn't even know about it.









I voted guilty, even though I think GZ is not guilty. If EVERYTHING ELSE were the same, then the general belief would still be that TM threw the first punch. You can't start a fight and then kill in self defense.





Why would the general belief be that TM was the attacker? Where is the prof of this?


































 






Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured