Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.

The polygraph he passed wherein he stated he did not confront Martin, Martin attacked him, and he believed he was going to die are certainly interesting corroborations, though.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.

The polygraph he passed wherein he stated he did not confront Martin, Martin attacked him, and he believed he was going to die are certainly interesting corroborations, though.

There is a reason they are not admissible on court.

And he was not given a polygraph test, they did a voice-stress analysis.

Also he was never asked during the test if Martin attacked him. All it asked was "did you confront him". If he didn't think that what he did was confrontational he will pass it, but that doesn't mean that he was not confrontational.

So your statement is entirely incorrect. He didn't pass a polygraph test that Martin attacked him. He passed a non-court admissable voice-stress test that shows that he doesn't think he confronted Martin. Pretty big difference, but lets just get this thing to trial instead of Internet lawyering it.

For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the moderators should put a gag order on this thread.

I will find you KK. I will find you and take away all of your porn and pictures of Japanese girls.

 d-usa wrote:

There is a reason they are not admissible on court.

And he was not given a polygraph test, they did a voice-stress analysis.

By Jove, you're right. My mistake.

Also he was never asked during the test if Martin attacked him. All it asked was "did you confront him". If he didn't think that what he did was confrontational he will pass it, but that doesn't mean that he was not confrontational.

So your statement is entirely incorrect. He didn't pass a polygraph test that Martin attacked him. He passed a non-court admissable voice-stress test that shows that he doesn't think he confronted Martin. Pretty big difference, but lets just get this thing to trial instead of Internet lawyering it.

That's not all they asked, no. They also asked if Zimmerman was in fear for his life.

Which again is nowhere near the same question as "did he attack you".

 d-usa wrote:
Which again is nowhere near the same question as "did he attack you".

Nope, sure isn't. You were correct on that question, I was not.

I was just pointing out the "fear for your life?" question because it has relevance to why the police didn't immediately arrest him.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.

Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.

 d-usa wrote:
But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.

How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?

Exalted.

On-topic, I definitely was led astray by the media on this one, initially. I am especially ashamed of it because I'm really old enough to have known better. At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.

 Ouze wrote:
At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.

Mostly the same here, although I am slightly leaning towards "he did something wrong". But I wanted a trial far more than a guilty verdict, and I am happy that it is heading that way and that we will be able to see the evidence and have this thing settled at some point.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.

How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?

Exalted.

On-topic, I definitely was led astray by the media on this one, initially. I am especially ashamed of it because I'm really old enough to have known better. At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.

There's no proof he didn't actually.

I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?

Wait for the cops to show up?

 Easy E wrote:
I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?

Wait for the cops to show up?

What did Zimmerman say afterwards?

 aosol wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?

Wait for the cops to show up?

What did Zimmerman say afterwards?

If this is in reference to a racial slur, then I am fairly certain that's been shown to be false.

I can't imagine why the defense team would release the photos to the public so close to the trial.

 aosol wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?

Wait for the cops to show up?

What did Zimmerman say afterwards?

AAYYYYYYYYYYYY
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

or before that?

While I'm sure its not the racially motivated crime everyone thought it was, I still doupt the complete innocence of Zimmerman, He seems like a nutcase.
But really, The kid did something stupid, we went out at night in a black hoodie, cut through a gated community(why are they gated? so people they dont know and trust arent allowed in) all for tea and skittles? The kid should have known he would have been suspicious walking through a gated community at night in a hoodie.
And Zimmerman should have just called the police and let them come.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
While I'm sure its not the racially motivated crime everyone thought it was, I still doupt the complete innocence of Zimmerman, He seems like a nutcase.
But really, The kid did something stupid, we went out at night in a black hoodie, cut through a gated community(why are they gated? so people they dont know and trust arent allowed in) all for tea and skittles? The kid should have known he would have been suspicious walking through a gated community at night in a hoodie.
And Zimmerman should have just called the police and let them come.

From what I understand he was staying in the gated with his father not "Cutting through it"
He wasn't recognised because he normally lived with his mum

Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.

Indeed, his death wasn't tragic at all when you look at it that way. All rather expected, really.

Wait someone blamed the victim?
I'm shocked.

Whatever are these fora coming to.

Not blaming the victim. Just saying that he made himself a target by doing something stupid.

Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?

 AustonT wrote:
Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?

It was the hoodie, of course.

Walking through a neighborhood at night in a hoodie. There are things you can do to not make yourself a victim, and that is not its.

That's funny I wear hoodie and walk all the time. Should I start wearing my vest under it. Since now I know I should expect to be stalked and shot at anytime.

Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?

By that logic why was Zimmerman?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?

What are the approved hours for walking the street? I work third shift, should I expect to be shot while walking to or from my car?

Also, I wear a hoodie as well, so I guess my eventual shooting would prove entirely warranted.