George Zimmerman Trial Live Streaming

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You had a 17 year old who thought he was being followed. A chase is an entirely different thing and an emotive term to change the perspective of "following" to an aggressive act of persuit.

He was being followed.

He realized it.

He ran.

The defendant chased him.

Listen to the recordings, the defendant is out of breath.

Neither could the defendant tell operator where he would be because he didn't want to let this one get away.

[canam]

You aint lsitening to the facts/test. JD tell your pros. to stop calling wit's for the defense (his) just fold now ,get it over with.no surprise about not listening, your mind has been made up from the first minute.its alway been white on black to you ,(despite gw being hispanic and that he has been heavily involved in the black community in the past) its always been circumstances vs circumstances for us.no matter how overwhelming the evidence against tm ,(the bloodied gz the grass stains on his back and on tm's knees gz was in a ground and pound situation and he defended himself period)but you will not change your mind.

[Jermyn Davidson]

When he chased after the victim, what was the victim doing, other than running away?

Did the defendant "see" or even "hear" the victim do anything to break the law?

The defendant acted on his assumptions, from the very beginning of this.

The defendant guessed wrong.

His actions led to the death of a 17 year old.

If the victim had survived, no doubt he would tell you that he felt he was defending himself. After all, the victim is the one who was chased by the defendant.

This was NEVER an "open and shut" case and I am SO GLAD that this case, not only made it to the light of the media and conscience of our country, but it made it to trial.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

He was being followed.

He realized it.

He ran.

We don't know he ran. From the street where GZ spotted him, to the area of the altercation is maybe 150-200 feet.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The defendant chased him.

Listen to the recordings, the defendant is out of breath.

That's an assumption based on your personal feelings about the case.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Neither could the defendant tell operator where he would be because he didn't want to let this one get away.

That belies the facts. There was a wit the Pros brought from the 911 center; they played 5 different 911 calls. Of those 5 calls, two resulted in arrests.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When he chased after the victim, what was the victim doing, other than running away?

Did the defendant "see" or even "hear" the victim do anything to break the law?

The defendant acted on his assumptions, from the very beginning of this.

The Sanford PD Liaison confirmed that she would have considered TM's actions as suspicious also.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The defendant guessed wrong.

His actions led to the death of a 17 year old.

I would say TM's actions and confrontation led to his death. He didn't have to stop. Were it me, I would've kept going to where I was staying. I wouldn't have stopped near the "T" and tried ambushing the person following me. And that's what happened. TM ran around the corner, waited and confronted GZ when he came around the corner. He should've run to the condo but he didn't.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If the victim had survived, no doubt he would tell you that he felt he was defending himself. After all, the victim is the one who was chased by the defendant.

You say chased, but he wasn't chased. He was followed by GZ, who was doing what he was trained and instructed to do.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

This was NEVER an "open and shut" case and I am SO GLAD that this case, not only made it to the light of the media and conscience of our country, but it made it to trial.

The media played it like it was an open and shut case. Obama made a stupid comment; Sharpton made his speeches; NBC edited the 911 call to stoke racial tension.

I've read a couple articles now where blacks are threatening to kill a white person if GZ is acquitted. Obama, Sharpton, NBC and the rest of the media are all each individually responsible if that happens.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

We don't know he ran. From the street where GZ spotted him, to the area of the altercation is maybe 150-200 feet.


That's an assumption based on your personal feelings about the case.


That belies the facts. There was a wit the Pros brought from the 911 center; they played 5 different 911 calls. Of those 5 calls, two resulted in arrests.


The Sanford PD Liaison confirmed that she would have considered TM's actions as suspicious also.


I would say TM's actions and confrontation led to his death. He didn't have to stop. Were it me, I would've kept going to where I was staying. I wouldn't have stopped near the "T" and tried ambushing the person following me. And that's what happened. TM ran around the corner, waited and confronted GZ when he came around the corner. He should've run to the condo but he didn't.


You say chased, but he wasn't chased. He was followed by GZ, who was doing what he was trained and instructed to do.


The media played it like it was an open and shut case. Obama made a stupid comment; Sharpton made his speeches; NBC edited the 911 call to stoke racial tension.

I've read a couple articles now where blacks are threatening to kill a white person if GZ is acquitted. Obama, Sharpton, NBC and the rest of the media are all each individually responsible if that happens.

Obama's comment wasn't stupid.

He was empathetic.

I had empathy too.


Why wouldn't you want the President to speak about something that, at the time, was galvanizing the nation-- not just black people?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Obama's comment wasn't stupid.

He was empathetic.

I had empathy too.


Why wouldn't you want the President to speak about something that, at the time, was galvanizing the nation-- not just black people?

so as not to create subjective bias before the facts are examined by a jury

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

so as not to create subjective bias before the facts are examined by a jury

Subjective bias?
He stated a fact!

He displayed empathy.
He demonstrated that he was in touch with the Americans that elected him-- the people of all races, all across this country who were shocked at the implications of what might have happened that night.

[J4Truth]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When he chased after the victim, what was the victim doing, other than running away?

Did the defendant "see" or even "hear" the victim do anything to break the law?

The defendant acted on his assumptions, from the very beginning of this.

The defendant guessed wrong.

His actions led to the death of a 17 year old.

If the victim had survived, no doubt he would tell you that he felt he was defending himself. After all, the victim is the one who was chased by the defendant.

This was NEVER an "open and shut" case and I am SO GLAD that this case, not only made it to the light of the media and conscience of our country, but it made it to trial.

Everyone knows GZ followed TM but NO ONE KNOWS if he chased and confronted.

On the phone we all hear GZ say he ran and the movement noise stops and that he didn't know where tm was.

There is no chase or follow after the point GZ says "he ran" but nearly 4 minutes later a confrontation happens at the near exact spot TM took flight from and you can't see that it's very likely TM turned around came back to initiate the confrontation?

Or maybe they were running in circles or in place.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

He was being followed.

He realized it.

He ran.

The defendant chased him.

Listen to the recordings, the defendant is out of breath.

Neither could the defendant tell operator where he would be because he didn't want to let this one get away.

equivocation fallacy.

Following is not automatically a chase

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

equivocation fallacy.

Following is not automatically a chase

When the victim ran away, the defendant ran after the victim.

There isn't an equivocation fallacy here.

Listen to the recordings.

The defendant is out of breath (from running).

The defendant even says things to the affect that "this guy is not going to get away from me."

The defendant has made 50 other calls to the Police for his neighborhood over the course of the last two years prior to this tragedy.



This IS indeed a chase.

Grown man, chasing a 17 year old, and the grown man KNEW he had his weapon on him. He didn't think his decision to chase or run after the victim all the way through.

If he had thought it all the way through, that 17 year old would not have died that night.

I never said that the defendant was blood-thirsty. I did say that he prejudged the victim and his intents.

Definitely, the defendant was overzealous in a way that should not be protected by the laws or our courts.

If he is found "Not-Guilty", it could set a really bad precedent for vigilantism.