[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Envy

You seem to be the only devil's advocate here since you are willing to argue the point but are committed to neither side.

Uh that's not really correct. When it comes to his initial trial, I'm on his side. He was found not guilty. When it comes to the current situation, then you're right... of course I'm not committed to either side. I wasn't there. You and several others are on the "He definitely did it" media-led bandwagon. You make assumptions based on your personal feelings.

"He won't hesitate to pull a gun in a heated discussion".

Based on the same evidence that got everyone riled up in the first case. None. His initial encounter declared he didn't pull his gun until after a physical confronation started. He didn't approach with gun drawn. Ultimately, it was ruled a self-defense case and NOT a "Stand Your Ground" case, which means he didn't shoot until he felt he absolutely had to. There is no evidence that he pulled it on his soon-to-be ex, and this current event is too early to tell. So how do you say "He won't hesitate"? That assumption is unfounded IMO.

That's why I play devil's advocate. You, and many others assume automatically that he did it, and are convinced that he was completely at fault during his initial encounter. I think it would be a safe bet to say that you don't think it was Martin's fault at all. I may be wrong about you personally, but I still feel it's a safe bet. I can only take the side of what I know... and since I wasn't there for any of it, that doesn't leave a lot of room for me to pick.

Now, in all fairness... do I consider that maybe he lied? Sure, of course I do. Do I think he made an error in judgement... yeah probably (but it's hard to say since I don't truly know exactly what happened... I wasn't there). Do I think he would pull a gun on his soon-to-be ex and girlfriend... sure. He has them. It's possible. But that doesn't mean he did.

Nothining personal of course. But read through this post. If this country responded to how people "feel" about the situation, do you think he would have been convicted intially? Hell yes he would have, even though the evidence (or lack of) showed otherwise. It's those assumptions that are first pushed into everyone's mind before the facts actually even come out. That's just silly.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

No, I did not read the transcript. I listened to the actual phone call. He called when in the truck. after seeing martin run, Zimmerman got out of his truck. that is when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. So zimmerman should have still been right next to his truck. The altercation wasn't next to his truck, it was between some houses. So no, I do not believe Zimmerman stopped looking for martin, after the police call...

I guess you were there and saw it all. Read the transcript there was several minutes between the time he called and described Martin and told the dispatcher where he was and where he was going before the dispatcher asked if he was following him. He said YES to that question meaning he was already following him not just standing by his truck.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

I guess you were there and saw it all. Read the transcript there was several minutes between the time he called and described Martin and told the dispatcher where he was and where he was going before the dispatcher asked if he was following him. He said YES to that question meaning he was already following him not just standing by his truck.

my god man. How can you get any kind of credible information by READING the transcript? There is a lot of sources out there that have the actual audio of the phone call. I can post a link if you'd like. You can hear Zimmerman get out of his truck, and as soon as the dispatcher hears that, he asks if he's following martin, he says yes. and RIGHT after that, the dispatcher says, they don't need him to do that. and RIGHT after that, Zimmerman says ok. That all happens within seconds. they talk for another minute or 2. next thing we know, martin is dead between some houses...away from the truck. What do you think happened? martin goes to Zimmerman next to his truck, and drags him away? lol

PS, Zimmerman was following him in his truck, until he saw martin run. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher while still in his truck, and while he got out of the truck. I don't need to be there to know that. I can hear it...

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

my god man. How can you get any kind of credible information by READING the transcript? There is a lot of sources out there that have the actual audio of the phone call. I can post a link if you'd like. You can hear Zimmerman get out of his truck, and as soon as the dispatcher hears that, he asks if he's following martin, he says yes. and RIGHT after that, the dispatcher says, they don't need him to do that. and RIGHT after that, Zimmerman says ok. That all happens within seconds. they talk for another minute or 2. next thing we know, martin is dead between some houses...away from the truck. What do you think happened? martin goes to Zimmerman next to his truck, and drags him away? lol

PS, Zimmerman was following him in his truck, until he saw martin run. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher while still in his truck, and while he got out of the truck. I don't need to be there to know that. I can hear it...

I have heard it and I have read the transcript. It does sound like he may have been in his truck at first but he was never told to stay in his truck and when he was asked if he was following Martin you can hear him breathing hard, why would anyone answer yes they were following someone if they were just standing by their truck as you said. Also later didn't he say Martin was running and he lost sight of him? Why didn't Martin continue running away? As you can tell Zimmerman was in no shape to be able to have caught up to him.
You believe what you want but the Jury got it right based on all the evidence.

[PoorMansCamaro]

you can follow someone, while driving. and you are right, Zimmerman was breathing hard. after getting out of his truck and walking/running for 1 or 2 seconds. lol Like I said, you can hear Zimmerman open and close his truck door, and immediately get asked if he was following the suspicious person, and immediately after that, say that he didn't need to follow him. Zimmerman took it upon himself to continue to look for martin, after they hung up, while waiting for the police to call him back. Otherwise, Zimmerman should have been a few feet from his truck. Not wondering around the neighborhood, and between houses, where he shot Martin.

just some fishy things that Zimmerman said that raise red flags. For instance, Zimmerman said he didn't remember he had a gun in his holster on him. I know people that have owned and carried guns for many many years, and they ALWAYS remember that they car carrying. I don't think I've ever heard one person say they forgot they had a gun on them.

and I agree, the verdict was correct, based on the evidence. I also believe OJ's verdict was correct, based on the evidence. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit! Doesn't mean I don't believe he didn't do it. lol

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

you can follow someone, while driving. and you are right, Zimmerman was breathing hard. after getting out of his truck and walking/running for 1 or 2 seconds. lol Like I said, you can hear Zimmerman open and close his truck door, and immediately get asked if he was following the suspicious person, and immediately after that, say that he didn't need to follow him. Zimmerman took it upon himself to continue to look for martin, after they hung up, while waiting for the police to call him back. Otherwise, Zimmerman should have been a few feet from his truck. Not wondering around the neighborhood, and between houses, where he shot Martin.

just some fishy things that Zimmerman said that raise red flags. For instance, Zimmerman said he didn't remember he had a gun in his holster on him. I know people that have owned and carried guns for many many years, and they ALWAYS remember that they car carrying. I don't think I've ever heard one person say they forgot they had a gun on them.

and I agree, the verdict was correct, based on the evidence. I also believe OJ's verdict was correct, based on the evidence. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit! Doesn't mean I don't believe he didn't do it. lol

I don't believe OJ did it himself, but I do believe he probably had someone take care of her and unfortunately Goldman was just unfortunately there at the wrong time. There were probably more than one person on the scene and those gloves were probably the other person's gloves so naturally they wouldn't fit OJ. But my beliefs have nothing to do with either case.

[2001ragtop]

You don't need a gun to have an argument with your wife or girlfriend. (use your voice)

You don't need a gun to be a neighbor-hood watch captain (you only need a cellphone)

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

You don't need a gun to have an argument with your wife or girlfriend. (use your voice)

You don't need a gun to be a neighbor-hood watch captain (you only need a cellphone)

And you don't need a gun driving around in your Camaro but according to many on here they do....

[Spartan01]

2001ragtop,
you are forgetting something: If you are normal, this is correct, but if you are a total wannabe cop/hero/ninja/navy seal, like Zimmerman, then you do need a gun to do a neighborhhod patrol and argue with your wife.

They were probably arguing over the last twinkie..

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

You don't need a gun to have an argument with your wife or girlfriend. (use your voice)

You don't need a gun to be a neighbor-hood watch captain (you only need a cellphone)

1) No evidence yet, only accusations. Stop making assumptions. If the accusations turn out to be fact, then hell yes I agree.

2) How do you know? What if that suspicious person you spotted notices you, IS a murderer/thief/hoodlum/drug dealer/whatever, and decides the gun/knife/bat/whatever they are carrying should be used on you first? Go ahead. Wait for the cops. If your neighborhood has enough problems that requires a neighborhood watch in the first place, it's probably more than an occasional flaming dog-poo bag on your porch. I believe theft and vandalism in that area was the reason?

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

And you don't need a gun driving around in your Camaro but according to many on here they do....

Cuz nobody has been threatened in their car. Or after getting out of their car. Or any other time. Before I moved to Kalifornia, I carried a gun every day. Never had to pull it. Never had to show it. Never even had to think about using it. I could say the same with the first aid kit in my car, and the fire extinguisher at home. Doesn't mean that there will never be a time where I might need it...

Originally Posted by Spartan01

2001ragtop,
you are forgetting something: If you are normal, this is correct, but if you are a total wannabe cop/hero/ninja/navy seal, like Zimmerman, then yo do need a gun to do a neighborhhod patrol and argue with your wife.

They were probably arguing over the last twinkie..

Only "not normal" people carry guns? I'm confused.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Cuz nobody has been threatened in their car. Or after getting out of their car. Or any other time. Before I moved to Kalifornia, I carried a gun every day. Never had to pull it. Never had to show it. Never even had to think about using it. I could say the same with the first aid kit in my car, and the fire extinguisher at home. Doesn't mean that there will never be a time where I might need it.

You kind of missed my point about the gun in the Camaro.
All I said was about not NEEDING to carry on in your Camaro. I am not saying you can't but it's not needed if you don't want to but you can if you want to... As long as it is done legally.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

You kind of missed my point about the gun in the Camaro.
All I said was about not NEEDING to carry on in your Camaro. I am not saying you can't but it's not needed if you don't want to but you can if you want to... As long as it is done legally.

You kind of missed my point too What is your definition of need? In this case, it would be "have available in the event it is required". Kind of like how you NEED the fire department. Your house may never have caught fire... does that mean you don't need them.

[Spartan01]

Kalimus,
That is not what I am saying at all.
I am a huge supporter of the 2nd ammendment.

HOWEVER, I am saying that, I know, for a fact, that George Zimmerman is a wannabe. He wanted to be a cop so bad, but couldn't pass the psych exam, and (probably) the physical.
I am reasonably sure that he quotes Clint eastwood and Robert Deniro while staring at himself in the mirror, trying to convince himself he is a tuff guy.

[SSmoothie]

For all of you pre trial accuser that were not there. The girlfriend recants her statement, saying she may have misspoken. That George never pointed a gun at or toward my face in a threatening manner.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-with-gun?lite