Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[TopChuckie]

Well said.

Except for the fact there is zero evidence of vigilantism. Everyone, just know the facts before you start offering opinions on this case because you really are doing our society a disservice by fueling the fire with misconceptions and misrepresentations.

[hacko]

when you're teaching children what's right and wrong, it's inconceivable to me that you could include a description of this event and say there is anything remotely "right" about the actions of zimmerman. there is no place for vigilantism in civilized society.[/QUOTE]

ON A GOING FORWARD NOTE::::

I was home for lunch yesterday and had the Tv on and Stephen A Smith was talking about this . He said he watch the whole trial and he said there was no doubt by the law and HOW THE CASE WAS PRESENTED that it was the RIGHT VERDICT. He went on to say you can argue about how it was presented but there was enough doubt that it was the only outcome BY THE LAW.

The second part of his discussion was what I found most interesting. He said he has a nephew and he ask his sister what did you discuss with him. She said I told my son you have to be SMART. Stop wearing your hoodie up in situations that could lead to trouble. Be proactive about situations.
It isn't always about being WHAT IS YOUR RIGHT but about being SMART. Don't put yourself in a bad situation.

[Long John]

Except for the fact there is zero evidence of vigilantism. Everyone, just know the facts before you start offering opinions on this case because you really are doing our society a disservice by fueling the fire with misconceptions and misrepresentations.

TC, for those of us that are obviously misinformed (myself included - there's no sarcasm intended here), would you or someone please lay out the facts of the case?

I realize this is opening up a can of worms, but there are clearly many of us who have a gross misunderstanding of what happened that night.

[TopChuckie]

when you're teaching children what's right and wrong, it's inconceivable to me that you could include a description of this event and say there is anything remotely "right" about the actions of zimmerman. there is no place for vigilantism in civilized society.

ON A GOING FORWARD NOTE::::

I was home for lunch yesterday and had the Tv on and Stephen A Smith was talking about this . He said he watch the whole trial and he said there was no doubt by the law and HOW THE CASE WAS PRESENTED that it was the RIGHT VERDICT. He went on to say you can argue about how it was presented but there was enough doubt that it was the only outcome BY THE LAW.

The second part of his discussion was what I found most interesting. He said he has a nephew and he ask his sister what did you discuss with him. She said I told my son you have to be SMART. Stop wearing your hoodie up in situations that could lead to trouble. Be proactive about situations.
It isn't always about being WHAT IS YOUR RIGHT but about being SMART. Don't put yourself in a bad situation.

That is a reasonable, rational, and realistic take on the issue, but at the same time, it was raining that night and a kid any color ought to be able to put his hoodie up to keep the rain off his head. MY OPINION is the whole hoodie thing has been blown way out of proportion and was not a catalyst in this incident, everything would have happened the same way had Trayvon been wearing hoodless sweatshirt. Now had he been wearing a white Izod polo, green pants, and deck shoes, THEN maybe none of this ever would have happened, but I don't think he should be obligated to do that either.

[TopChuckie]

TC, for those of us that are obviously misinformed (myself included - there's no sarcasm intended here), would you or someone please lay out the facts of the case?

I realize this is opening up a can of worms, but there are clearly many of us who have a gross misunderstanding of what happened that night.

Ironically, I just started doing that this morning but it is going to take some time with work mixed in and I want to be as complete, factual, and unbiased as possible.

[Lucky]

i didn't claim he was a criminal, i claimed he was immoral.

to answer ITCs question about who decides what is moral, well, that has several levels. it's certainly socio-cultural. but it varies all the way from national to regional to down to neighborhoods in that sense. what i'm talking about is my own moral compass. to me, what zimmerman did is immoral. to RR it's not, apparently because it's "legal." again, i claim a disconnect between legal and moral, at least in some cases. is it legal to go over the speed limit? no. is it immoral? no. is it legal to murder someone? no. is it immoral? yes. is it legal to do what zimmerman did? apparently, at least in some places in the U.S. is it immoral? yes. according to my own moral compass.

when you're teaching children what's right and wrong, it's inconceivable to me that you could include a description of this event and say there is anything remotely "right" about the actions of zimmerman. there is no place for vigilantism in civilized society.

Excellent.

Next, what Zimmerman did was the essence of vigilantism. He was a private citizen, untrained in the law or police procedure, who armed himself and went out to enforce the law as he understood it to be. Regardless of the outcome, he was acting as a vigilante.

Next, Stephen A. Smith? Are you kidding me? What do you think makes him an expert? The fact that he has spent his life as a sports journalist, or the fact that he is black? Citing random African-Americans who happen to agree with the Zimmerman verdict is so transparent.

[Lucky]

Ironically, I just started doing that this morning but it is going to take some time with work mixed in and I want to be as complete, factual, and unbiased as possible.

Please, spare us. If you have already decided there was no evidence of vigilantism, you either do not understand the facts or you have punted on the bias issue.

[Roto Rooter]

TC, for those of us that are obviously misinformed (myself included - there's no sarcasm intended here), would you or someone please lay out the facts of the case?

I realize this is opening up a can of worms, but there are clearly many of us who have a gross misunderstanding of what happened that night.

Setting the stage:

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that most of these were committed by black males.

Just six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house -- one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

Night of the incident:

Zimmerman driving around his community on alert because of all that has been going on there lately sees an unfamiliar suspicious person similar to people committing crimes in his neighborhood at an alarming rate. Zimmerman called his department's non-emergency line to report a suspicious person and was instructed him not to get out of his car or approach cops would be dispatched to the scene. Because of past incidents Zimmerman decided to get out and watch/follow the person, so he wouldn't get away. After following for a little bit he breaks off and goes back toward his car. In the mean time "kid" Trayvon Martin is talking on his phone to a friend informing her he's got a creepy ass cracka looking at him. At some point a fight happens. Zimmerman say he was jumped from behind on the way back to his vehicle and his injuries from that night are consistent with this. Martin was 5 inches taller and much more fit that Zimmerman, so it's wouldn't take much to have the upperhand especially if you initiated the attack. Eye witness accounts say the saw a black man on top of a another man beating him MMA style and the man getting beat screaming for help and the man on top saying i'm going to kill you. Zimmerman is able to get to his gun at some point during the fight and was able to end the assault.

After the incident:

Local police investigation determined this was a self defense case and no charges were filed because of this. This is when the political train got started including our president making this a national race issue and once that train got rolling you couldn't stop it. The DA is forced to bring charges based on political pressure and not through a grand jury.

Trial:

Defense wipes the floor with the prosecution because every fact pointed to this being a self defense case.

Media bias and shape shifting:

From the get go of this case hitting the national scene. George Zimmerman who everyone assumed to be white actually turned out to be a hispanic man. He's mixed like Obama dad is jewish and mom hispanic and Zimmerman himself identifies as hispanic. That didn't matter to the race baiters and agenda pushers. They made it a white vs black thing because that's what they do. Martin is portrayed as a little child using doctored photos to make his skin lighter and using photos of him at 12 years old. They weren't going to use current photos because it showed that Martin was hardly a kid. Martin was also not an angel. Images and texts from the phone he was using the night of the incident showed multiple pictures of Martin using marijuana and multiple texts showing he was dealing drugs and was in the process of buying or selling an illegal gun. The prosecution actually held back this evidence from the defense because they knew it was bad for them.

Zimmerman's accountability:

Of course Zimmerman was a vigilante. Personally I think any neighborhood watchman is a vigilante, but Zimmerman didn't do anything ILLEGAL that night. Could he have stayed in his car? Sure. Did Martin have to assault the creepy ass cracka? No.

[hacko]

Citing random African-Americans who happen to agree with the Zimmerman verdict is so transparent.

What exactly do you mean by this?

[Roto Rooter]

What exactly do you mean by this?

You already know what he means and it's disgusting. Surprised he didn't say uncle tom.

[TopChuckie]

Here is my attempt at an unbiased, based on the evidence in the trial, account of what really happened that night. I will admit there is some bias but I contend it is based on the facts of the trial and what I really believe occurred, and has nothing to do with my views on race or gun control.

George Zimmerman (GZ) is the founder of a neighborhood watch program because his neighborhood has seen several
crimes committed over the past couple years, including a home invasion by two black men in the last few months. One
rainy night in February he is on his way to the store with his legally obtained and carried concealed weapon with a
round in the chamber, as he normally did and how he was advised to do when he purchased the gun for personal
protection.

This night GZ notices a suspicious looking person, who is similar in description to the home invaders, walking
through the neighborhood. We will learn this person is Trayvon Martin (TM). GZ is on heightened alert due to the
recent rash of unsolved crimes, so he calls the non-emergency number for the police, as he has done several times
before, and tells them there is a suspicious person in the neighborhood. Link to transcript, but you should listen
for yourself to hear tone: http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html


Does GZ find him suspicious because the man is black, and if so, is that because GZ is racist or just prejudice (big
difference) or because he knows that the home invaders were young, black men and THAT made a young, black man more
of a concern to GZ? For the record, GZ doesn't mention the man is black until the police dispatcher asks, and he
uses no derogatory racial terms in describing the man. (Also, NBC edited the call to make it appear GZ said he was
suspicious of the man because he was black. That wasn't part of the trial, but it's scary and disgusting and you should know
that about the media coverage, and that went a long way toward making this a hot button racial issue.) GZ says the man is suspicious
because he is not simply walking on the sidewalk but is walking through the yards, looking at the houses, and because it's raining yet the
man seems to be in no particular hurry to get to where he is going and get out of the rain. (Most of this is in the
call, some comes from GZ's statements to the police after the incident.) GZ says the man is odd and appears to be on
drugs. (Not really relevant except the toxicology report did find small levels of THC in TM's system. After a
hearing during the trial without the jury present, the defense was allowed to use this information but chose not
to.) This is my opinion or interpretation, but GZ's voice during the call is very calm and meek but a bit nervous
at points, i.e. not aggressive or angry at all. You'll have to listen to the call to form your own opinions on that
issue.

GZ does express some fear to the dispatcher in that he doesn't want to give his address for fear the suspicious man
will hear it and at one point GZ says the man circled GZ's car and has his hands near his waistband. GZ also states
"these assholes, they always get away" but again, my opinion, listen and form your own, is that GZ is saying this in
a tone of hopeless frustration, not aggressive, take the law into his own hands, anger.

Then GZ says "Shit, he's running." The dispatcher says, "He's running? Which way is he running?" I highlight this
because I heard a portion of an interview with a juror last night who considered this the dispatcher egging GZ on to
follow TM, despite the fact when the dispatcher hears GZ's car door open and wind noises, he asks if GZ is following him, GZ says
yes, and dispatcher tells him, "We don't need you to do that." This is important because the media will have you
believe the dispatcher gave Zimmerman a direct order not to follow despite the fact the dispatcher testified they do
not give direct instructions so as to avoid liability in case something happens. GZ says "Ok" in response. The media will also have you believe GZ disregarded the non-existent direct order, when in fact, the evidence appears consistent that GZ did indeed take the dispatcher's suggestion/urging he not follow and began heading back to his car.

After the incident, GZ will tell the police it is at this point he started heading back to his vehicle when out of
nowhere TM approached him. This is the point of most inconsistency in GZ's subsequent statements. GZ says he was
out of the car not to follow TM, but to obtain an address for the dispatcher because from his vantage point he could not see any house
numbers. I believe this to be the only statement GZ might have fabricated/altered for fear of the appearance he did
something wrong. I believe even though one might not have done anything wrong, they can see how it might look wrong
and might massage it a little for their benefit. I truly believe the reality is GZ only got out of his vehicle to
follow TM in order to keep an eye on him until the police got there so he could tell them where TM is and I do not
believe GZ had any desire to confront TM. Listen to the tape, he does not sound at all like a man who welcomes
confrontation and he had the opportunity to confront when TM had approached him earlier and GZ reacted with fear,
not aggression. There was also some inconsistency in GZ's subsequent statements with respect to TM came out of the
bushes, TM came out of the darkness, TM came out of nowhere which I, and the chief investigating officer, consider
negligible inconsistencies under the circumstances. The prosecution would have you believe this is proof of murder.

According to GZ, at this point TM asks GZ, "You got a problem?" GZ says, "No, I don't have a problem." TM says,
"You got a problem now muthafucker." and while GZ says he was fumbling around to find his cell phone, I'll admit he might have been going for his gun, TM punches GZ in the face, knocking him off balance, and then proceeds to take GZ to the ground. A scuffle ensues which of course
is very hectic and dynamic and which no one directly involved could have an entirely accurate recount of. However we
do know there were resulting injuries to the back of GZ's head, multiple abrasions and contusions all over GZ's face and
head, and I think GZ suffered a broken nose, in any event he had a significantly swollen and distorted nose and eventually two
black eyes consistent with a broken nose. TM had no injuries whatsoever with the exception of the gun shot wound and
on his knuckles.

GZ says they scuffled, GZ wound up on his back, mostly in the grass with just his head on the sidewalk. (GZ's jacket in evidence is consistent with this, wet and grass on the back.) TM was on top of him, punching him ("Ground & Pound" MMA style according to an eye witness.), banging his head on the sidewalk, and trying to put his hand over his mouth while GZ screamed for help. There is a neighbor's 911 call which recorded the screams and the gun shot. Biased witnesses for both sides gave testimony the voice screaming on the tape was GZ and TM. Most of this testimony is tainted and inconsistent, particularly with respect to the Martin family's statements. (That's not bias on my part, it's fact. TM's father initially told the police it was not his son, then changed his story, and most, if not all, of the other Martin family members gave their initial statements as a group with only politicians and no law enforcement present because they were intentionally excluded by the politicians. Why? Does that sound right to you?) The screaming lasted for 45 seconds and ended with the gun shot. Ask yourself logically, who would yell for help for 45 seconds, the man on the bottom with all the injuries, or the man on top pounding on someone "MMA style" who up to this point had incurred no injuries, except on his knuckles? As GZ was squirming to get free he contorted in such a way as to make his jacket pull up, revealing his gun. TM saw the gun, reached for it, saying "You're gonna die tonight muthafucker.", GZ grabbed his gun first, pointed it directly at TM, and shot. (All ballistics and forensics support GZ's account. The prosecution would argue the ballistics supported the possibility it could have occurred in other manners also, but the fact remains, GZ gave his account to the police without the benefit of ballistics or forensics and it was consistent.) TM sat back and said something like "Ok, you got me." either fell off to the side
or GZ pushed him to the side, onto his stomach. GZ got out from under him, and got on TM's back, not necessarily realizing he had shot him, holding TM's arms out to the side while asking neighbors, who were now appearing, to help him. Instead they only said they were calling 911.

Soon an officer showed up. GZ made no effort to flee, informed the officer of his weapon, it's whereabouts, and
that he shot TM, and conducted himself exactly as the officer instructed him to do.

There is much more evidence and testimony that supports this account and nothing concrete that disputes it, or points to any other logical course of events. As I argued earlier, GZ gave numerous complete and detailed statements and a reenactment consistent with all the evidence to the police immediately after the event and without the benefit of knowing any of the evidence or if there was evidence that would conflict with his statements. He was even confronted with the possibility there was a video that would reveal if he was indeed telling the truth, and GZ never wavered, in fact he felt bolstered by it. In 17 months since the incident, armed with all the evidence, witness accounts, ballistics, and forensics, an entire team of lawyers could not put together a logical, complete, and consistent account that would contradict GZ's account. I believe GZ had no intent to confront TM, no intent to take the law into his own hands, had no intent to distribute justice that night, no vigilantism. He simply wanted to assist the police by being able to tell them the whereabouts of this suspicious person, as I believe any citizen, and particularly a neighborhood watchperson, would feel compelled, and within their right to do.

[Long John]

Very interesting.

Based on this it makes complete sense that GZ was acquitted.

IMO, both men were wrong: TM for doubling back to confront GZ and not just walking away; GZ for not knowing where he was in his own neighborhood and getting out of his car to follow TM. IMO, neighborhood watch has no business carrying a gun and a neighborhood watch should always be done in pairs anyway.

I'm very sorry that TM is dead, but part of it is his own fault.

[Lucky]

You already know what he means and it's disgusting. Surprised he didn't say uncle tom.

He should know what I meant, but you obviously didn't. Uncle Tom doesn't have anything to do with it. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Citing random African-Americans who support the verdict is a transparent ploy and a logical fallacy. The implication is that if these various black people agreed with the verdict, then it must have been correct. It's a disgusting ploy in the assumptions it makes about African-Americans (who do not think with a single mind). And it is disgusting that your mind went to Uncle Tom.

Stephen A. may be annoying at times, but he should never be accused of not thinking for himself.

[Lucky]

Here is my attempt at an unbiased, based on the evidence in the trial, account of what really happened that night. I will admit there is some bias but I contend it is based on the facts of the trial and what I really believe occurred, and has nothing to do with my views on race or gun control.

George Zimmerman (GZ) is the founder of a neighborhood watch program because his neighborhood has seen several
crimes committed over the past couple years, including a home invasion by two black men in the last few months. One
rainy night in February he is on his way to the store with his legally obtained and carried concealed weapon with a
round in the chamber, as he normally did and how he was advised to do when he purchased the gun for personal
protection.

This night GZ notices a suspicious looking person, who is similar in description to the home invaders, walking
through the neighborhood. We will learn this person is Trayvon Martin (TM). GZ is on heightened alert due to the
recent rash of unsolved crimes, so he calls the non-emergency number for the police, as he has done several times
before, and tells them there is a suspicious person in the neighborhood. Link to transcript, but you should listen
for yourself to hear tone: http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html


Does GZ find him suspicious because the man is black, and if so, is that because GZ is racist or just prejudice (big
difference) or because he knows that the home invaders were young, black men and THAT made a young, black man more
of a concern to GZ? For the record, GZ doesn't mention the man is black until the police dispatcher asks, and he
uses no derogatory racial terms in describing the man. (Also, NBC edited the call to make it appear GZ said he was
suspicious of the man because he was black. That wasn't part of the trial, but it's scary and disgusting and you should know
that about the media coverage, and that went a long way toward making this a hot button racial issue.) GZ says the man is suspicious
because he is not simply walking on the sidewalk but is walking through the yards, looking at the houses, and because it's raining yet the
man seems to be in no particular hurry to get to where he is going and get out of the rain. (Most of this is in the
call, some comes from GZ's statements to the police after the incident.) GZ says the man is odd and appears to be on
drugs. (Not really relevant except the toxicology report did find small levels of THC in TM's system. After a
hearing during the trial without the jury present, the defense was allowed to use this information but chose not
to.) This is my opinion or interpretation, but GZ's voice during the call is very calm and meek but a bit nervous
at points, i.e. not aggressive or angry at all. You'll have to listen to the call to form your own opinions on that
issue.

GZ does express some fear to the dispatcher in that he doesn't want to give his address for fear the suspicious man
will hear it and at one point GZ says the man circled GZ's car and has his hands near his waistband. GZ also states
"these assholes, they always get away" but again, my opinion, listen and form your own, is that GZ is saying this in
a tone of hopeless frustration, not aggressive, take the law into his own hands, anger.

Then GZ says "Shit, he's running." The dispatcher says, "He's running? Which way is he running?" I highlight this
because I heard a portion of an interview with a juror last night who considered this the dispatcher egging GZ on to
follow TM, despite the fact when the dispatcher hears GZ's car door open and wind noises, he asks if GZ is following him, GZ says
yes, and dispatcher tells him, "We don't need you to do that." This is important because the media will have you
believe the dispatcher gave Zimmerman a direct order not to follow despite the fact the dispatcher testified they do
not give direct instructions so as to avoid liability in case something happens. GZ says "Ok" in response. The media will also have you believe GZ disregarded the non-existent direct order, when in fact, the evidence appears consistent that GZ did indeed take the dispatcher's suggestion/urging he not follow and began heading back to his car.

After the incident, GZ will tell the police it is at this point he started heading back to his vehicle when out of
nowhere TM approached him. This is the point of most inconsistency in GZ's subsequent statements. GZ says he was
out of the car not to follow TM, but to obtain an address for the dispatcher because from his vantage point he could not see any house
numbers. I believe this to be the only statement GZ might have fabricated/altered for fear of the appearance he did
something wrong. I believe even though one might not have done anything wrong, they can see how it might look wrong
and might massage it a little for their benefit. I truly believe the reality is GZ only got out of his vehicle to
follow TM in order to keep an eye on him until the police got there so he could tell them where TM is and I do not
believe GZ had any desire to confront TM. Listen to the tape, he does not sound at all like a man who welcomes
confrontation and he had the opportunity to confront when TM had approached him earlier and GZ reacted with fear,
not aggression. There was also some inconsistency in GZ's subsequent statements with respect to TM came out of the
bushes, TM came out of the darkness, TM came out of nowhere which I, and the chief investigating officer, consider
negligible inconsistencies under the circumstances. The prosecution would have you believe this is proof of murder.

According to GZ, at this point TM asks GZ, "You got a problem?" GZ says, "No, I don't have a problem." TM says,
"You got a problem now muthafucker." and while GZ says he was fumbling around to find his cell phone, I'll admit he might have been going for his gun, TM punches GZ in the face, knocking him off balance, and then proceeds to take GZ to the ground. A scuffle ensues which of course
is very hectic and dynamic and which no one directly involved could have an entirely accurate recount of. However we
do know there were resulting injuries to the back of GZ's head, multiple abrasions and contusions all over GZ's face and
head, and I think GZ suffered a broken nose, in any event he had a significantly swollen and distorted nose and eventually two
black eyes consistent with a broken nose. TM had no injuries whatsoever with the exception of the gun shot wound and
on his knuckles.

GZ says they scuffled, GZ wound up on his back, mostly in the grass with just his head on the sidewalk. (GZ's jacket in evidence is consistent with this, wet and grass on the back.) TM was on top of him, punching him ("Ground & Pound" MMA style according to an eye witness.), banging his head on the sidewalk, and trying to put his hand over his mouth while GZ screamed for help. There is a neighbor's 911 call which recorded the screams and the gun shot. Biased witnesses for both sides gave testimony the voice screaming on the tape was GZ and TM. Most of this testimony is tainted and inconsistent, particularly with respect to the Martin family's statements. (That's not bias on my part, it's fact. TM's father initially told the police it was not his son, then changed his story, and most, if not all, of the other Martin family members gave their initial statements as a group with only politicians and no law enforcement present because they were intentionally excluded by the politicians. Why? Does that sound right to you?) The screaming lasted for 45 seconds and ended with the gun shot. Ask yourself logically, who would yell for help for 45 seconds, the man on the bottom with all the injuries, or the man on top pounding on someone "MMA style" who up to this point had incurred no injuries, except on his knuckles? As GZ was squirming to get free he contorted in such a way as to make his jacket pull up, revealing his gun. TM saw the gun, reached for it, saying "You're gonna die tonight muthafucker.", GZ grabbed his gun first, pointed it directly at TM, and shot. (All ballistics and forensics support GZ's account. The prosecution would argue the ballistics supported the possibility it could have occurred in other manners also, but the fact remains, GZ gave his account to the police without the benefit of ballistics or forensics and it was consistent.) TM sat back and said something like "Ok, you got me." either fell off to the side
or GZ pushed him to the side, onto his stomach. GZ got out from under him, and got on TM's back, not necessarily realizing he had shot him, holding TM's arms out to the side while asking neighbors, who were now appearing, to help him. Instead they only said they were calling 911.

Soon an officer showed up. GZ made no effort to flee, informed the officer of his weapon, it's whereabouts, and
that he shot TM, and conducted himself exactly as the officer instructed him to do.

There is much more evidence and testimony that supports this account and nothing concrete that disputes it, or points to any other logical course of events. As I argued earlier, GZ gave numerous complete and detailed statements and a reenactment consistent with all the evidence to the police immediately after the event and without the benefit of knowing any of the evidence or if there was evidence that would conflict with his statements. He was even confronted with the possibility there was a video that would reveal if he was indeed telling the truth, and GZ never wavered, in fact he felt bolstered by it. In 17 months since the incident, armed with all the evidence, witness accounts, ballistics, and forensics, an entire team of lawyers could not put together a logical, complete, and consistent account that would contradict GZ's account. I believe GZ had no intent to confront TM, no intent to take the law into his own hands, had no intent to distribute justice that night, no vigilantism. He simply wanted to assist the police by being able to tell them the whereabouts of this suspicious person, as I believe any citizen, and particularly a neighborhood watchperson, would feel compelled, and within their right to do.

The biggest problem with this (besides the admitted bias) is that GZ didn't say any of this in Court, and was therefore not subject to cross-examination. You continue attempting to lessen the significance of this by pointing out the time period between the incident and the trial (and assuming he would have been a decent witness in his own behalf), but without a corroborating eye witness or sworn testimony subject to cross, I will take all of his self-serving pretrial statements with a grain of salt.

[TopChuckie]

The biggest problem with this (besides the admitted bias) is that GZ didn't say any of this in Court, and was therefore not subject to cross-examination. You continue attempting to lessen the significance of this by pointing out the time period between the incident and the trial (and assuming he would have been a decent witness in his own behalf), but without a corroborating eye witness or sworn testimony subject to cross, I will take all of his self-serving pretrial statements with a grain of salt.

You admitted yourself a good, possibly unethical, lawyer could make any witness appear guilty. I believe that is why he didn't testify, not because he had anything to hide.

Watch the police interviews, they provide his testimony, several times, and they serve as some degree of cross examination. I would contend when faced with the threat/possibility of a video documentation of the event it would motivate honesty far more than some tricky lawyer.

Could an innocent man have been made to look guilty by an experienced lawyer and convicted by six jurors who couldn't see through it? Certainly. Thank God that's not what happened.