Is Zimmerman Guilty?

I don't know what you know about close quarter combat, but I can tell you that it is entirely possible to shoot someone in the back who you are grappling with. Reconstructing a melee battle scene on concrete is very difficult. It is so easy to contaminate the scene it is ridiculous.

Now whether or not it was a point blank shot would be interesting to know. If there isn't a great deal of powder residue on Trayvon's clothes than your argument might hold up. Was that ever brought up? Because I haven't followed it immensely. I only know the highlights.

Ultimately, your belief isn't proof. And that is what is required in a court of law. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

 

Sorry Margot I do not have the time to listen to all this. Please tell me what evidence you think they have that changes the fact that he was attacked, and please just facts. Something they can ''prove'' that matters.

 

Oh wow I should have checked that, my bad. Regardless I still don't see what made Zimmerman feel he need to fire the gun. That's the issue. I also don't think it mattered that it was a blank. If you want to put someone off use rubber bullets.

 

Its easy.. just play it in the background while you do other things.. and decide for yourself.

 

Not cost effective. And plus, rubber bullets aren't going to stop people who are drugged up. A taser would have made this a lot easier though.

You can never predict when you'll need lethality. But it is always nice to have handy. In this case it appears to have ended an attack on this Zimmerman character.

 

Alright you already know it was not in the back it was the chest, so there goes that theory. You are left with what? You believe it was overkill because he got punched?
Well you would not be surprised to know that's pure conjecture on your part and means nothing at all, can you prove that?

See what I mean? you could be exactly right, but it means nothing in court. If anything it shows a bias on your part, you cant prove it but you believe it,,,why?

 

No. no.. that's ok..

George didn't need to kill Trayvon. He could have easily have said, "I'm with neighborhood watch".

But, I think there is a great deal more to it having to do with George's failures and humiliation.. rejection of his applications to join SPD.

If Trayvon had gotten away or survived, his family would have called the police and filed charges against George. That would have been the end.. Booted out and shunned by the HOA, no NW.. a laughing stock at Seminole College... a laughing stock at the SPD.

At some point in this encounter GZ thought he had to kill Trayvon rather than spek and diffuse the situation.

 

No longer relevant.

 

Was Trayvon "drugged up".

 

Irrelevant, how could he have known otherwise? He isn't a psychic.

 

No.. There were trace amounts of THC.. which means he had probably smoke weed within a period of two weeks to a month.

Funny thing.. if a white kid smokes pot.. he's going thru a phase.. if a black kid smokes pot.. he's a druggie and a drug dealer.

 

Hypotheticals are super, but they yield no value in a courtroom other than to manipulate a jury's feelings. And GZ's past failings have nothing to do with the actual attack.

 

You can tell if someone is on drugs by their behavior.

 

These are all guesses, assumptions, may be's, could be's they all mean nothing in court. Look, I do not doubt your conviction that Travon was shot for no reason, I truly believe you and others believe that.

But it does not fly in a court of law..You can not go in there and say ''I think this,,,I think that'',,the other attorney will stop you right in your tracks, you know this right? Zimmrmans attorney would have a field day.

 

Trace amounts of THC mean nothing, THC stays in the system for 4-6 weeks. Additionally, THC is not a drug that is widely known to cause aggression.

Lol right?

 

Zimmermans attorney should be so lucky they use that stuff......Talk about grasping....

 

Yeah, this is pretty crucial.

 

I suppose it is what they do with this 'phase' that really determines the profile. I knew a lot of white kids that smoked but didn't deal and still managed to get A's in school. And the direct opposite with the blacks as well. Sad phenomenon really. Most of the blacks dropped out that were into this stuff. Don't know what happened to them. Surely they reformed their lives and are attending yale to become engineers.

Of course it could mean that he just didn't wash his clothes alot too, and wore the hoodie that he last smoked in, or was at a party where they were hot boxing or something. Point is we don't know. But apparently there was THC on this guy, this troubled youth was was fixing his life up. Right...

End of the day, we don't know. GZ could be a ruthless child murdering monster, or Trayvon could have wigged out on him and earned it, or both! Regardless, we just don't know. Video surveillance would be great for a case like this. Open and closed without much fuss.

 

Not aggression..just the munchies.

George was taking Adderol, Librax, an anti-depressant and Restoril.. Weird combination IMO.

 

This is not entirely true. Cops are easily fooled, and so are parents. To assume otherwise with utter absolution is naive.

But yes, some things can be picked up on. Really depends on how perceptive the observer is, and how clever the subterfuge is on the user.

 

Adderal is an amphetamine. That does not look good at all.

 

My kids all smoked a little between 17 and 20.. they turned out fine... and I have black friends that smoked a little in HS..They are fine.

By all accounts.. Trayvon was laid back, sweet and funny..

I can't see any teen aged boy that I have ever known ambushing and attacking an older man.

 

So you're saying that drugs don't influence behavior? This would be relevant if Trayvon had done something that would indicate he was on drugs that would make him aggressive or unpredictable.

 

When you got nothing left you reach at the bottom of the bucket for anything I suppose. Desperation leads to legendary feats of both stupidity and genius. In this case I think the former is more appropriate.

 

Sounds like something to take up with his physician. Odds are it was prescribed for a reason. But this doesn't change anything.

You guys are scraping the bottom of that bucket pretty clean.