George Zimmerman Trial Live Streaming

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You missed the testimony by the Stanford Police Department witness who stated that the training said to follow from a safe distance. She also agreed that Trayvon's actions made him appear suspicious.

The new HOA President finally admitted to the defense that they were told they could at a safe distance.

What exactly is a safe distance?

Obviously, the defendant didn't do this, else there wouldn't have been a physical altercation in the first place.

The 17 year old responded like a 17 year old would respond when feeling threatened-- which it is clear he did feel threatened. After all, he did attempt to run away from the aggressor.

I hope the prosecution gets to question the defendant. I want him to answer whether or not he approached the 17 year old.

My gut tells me he in fact did apprach the 17 year old-- leading to the altercation where the 17 year old was killed when tried to defend himself.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What exactly is a safe distance?

Obviously, the defendant didn't do this, else there wouldn't have been a physical altercation in the first place.

The 17 year old responded like a 17 year old would respond when feeling threatened-- which it is clear he did feel threatened. After all, he did attempt to run away from the aggressor.

I hope the prosecution gets to question the defendant. I want him to answer whether or not he approached the 17 year old.

My gut tells me he in fact did apprach the 17 year old-- leading to the altercation where the 17 year old was killed when tried to defend himself.

The Prosecution is having serious problems. A solid case wouldn't have these problems.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The Stanford PD witness wasn't there.

To the 17 year old, walking around looking at buildings is not suspicious.

To the over-zealous neighborhood watch who is determined to catch someone, the 17 year old was suspicious.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The Stanford PD witness wasn't there.

To the 17 year old, walking around looking at buildings is not suspicious.

To the over-zealous neighborhood watch who is determined to catch someone, the 17 year old was suspicious.

You are going on emotion and not facts. I suggest you listen to the evidence playing out. The Star Witness has huge credibility problems.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Prosecution is having serious problems. A solid case wouldn't have these problems.

I know.

It's depressing, that's why I haven't posted much on this thread.

I know what happened to Trayvon Martin.

He was only 17, so young and unaware of any world other than his own.

His age and his naievete drove his response and when he felt that "flight" was no longer an option, he had to "fight".

The defendant was fed-up with the crime happening in his neighborhood. His sense of moral courage, ego and prejudice drove his actions and when he realized that "flight" was not an option, he used his weapon and killed the 17 year old.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are going on emotion and not facts. I suggest you listen to the evidence playing out. The Star Witness has huge credibility problems.

If you get past her perceived ignorance and perceived ghetto demeanor, and her ignorant thought pattern, you still have a 17 year old who thought he was being chased.

Or do you suggest we don't listen to anything she has to say at all?
She was on the phone with the victim literally right before this happened.

Which means, it couldn't have been raining that hard that evening-- otherwise he wouldn't risked ruining his phone.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It was established that the defendant was following the 17 year old.

The 17 year old felt threatened.

The 17 year old actually tried to run away from the creepy (blank) cracker guy.

The creepy (blank) cracker guy followed him.

The creepy (blank) cracker guy is the aggressor in this situation.

The 17 year old defends himself but is killed.

If performing neighborhood watch duties, he shouldn't have been armed-- by the national "Neighborhood Watch" organization-- but this wasn't that.

So, basically I'll be able to walk around my neighborhood and if I think someone is suspicious looking, I can chase the person and if that person defends themself, I can kill them and claim self-defense.

I am glad this went to trial.
The circumstances of the death of Trayvon Martin needed to be thoroughly investigated.

You know, you keep saying 17 year old like it means anything. You're letting your bias get in the way of facts.

TM was 4 inches taller than GZ and barely 10lbs less. Here's some perspective...Lebron James was 6'8" and over 200lbs as a 17 year old. Was he a child or boy simply because of his age? I'm sorry, but thugs from the hood are tougher at age 15 than what GZ was at his age. They're cocky and not afraid to confront adults...especially if they're bigger in size.

So let's dispel this notion that TM was a "child," or "boy" -- he wasn't. He was, by his physical characteristics, a young man... 6'0" 160lbs.

Now, maybe you missed the earlier testimony by the Sanford Police Department's Liaison for Neighborhood Watch and the testimony of the HOA President, so I'll not hold your error against you.

The Liaison gave training that stated it was proper and ok to follow from a safe distance.

The HOA President was in the training class and admitted to the defense that they were in fact told it was okay to follow someone who appeared to be suspicious.

The Liaison also said, based on the description from GZ, she too would have considered TM suspicious.

You misstated how TM described GZ...he called GZ a creepy (blank) CRACKER. So let's use the whole racist, offensive phrase if you're going to use it at all. Of course, TM gets a pass because that's just his "culture." To use the eloquent words of Rachel Jeantel yesterday, "That's retarded, SIR." Remember when people thought GZ uttered a word that's derogatory to blacks....oh man, there was no debate about "culture" or acceptable use among his people. No sir. It was, "GZ's a racist." "GZ should be charged with a hate crime."

TM was more racist in his description of GZ, than GZ was in his description of TM....that's just a simple fact.

About who the aggressor was...

Rachel Jeantel testified that she was on the phone with TM when he spoke first, confronting GZ, asking him why he was following him.

Jenna Lauer testified that she heard noise that sounded like "sneakers on concrete" at the beginning.

Both of these would suggest it was TM and NOT GZ who initiated the confrontation.

Should GZ have a gun? A simple look at crime stats shows that area code 32271, which includes The Retreat at Twin Lakes, has almost 3 times the national average for assaults; and more than twice the national average for larceny, burglary, and grand theft auto.

He's a NW coordinator. He's looking for bad guys. Bad guys tend to have weapons. GZ was licensed and trained for C&C. His friend who trained him is a Federal Marshal. So yes, he's not only right for carrying, he's fully qualified for it.

[KWSS1976]

JD he had a headset on so phone was in his pocket, and the Star Witness repeatedly lied so she ius not to be trusted ghetto or not. Have you been watching the case?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I know.

It's depressing, that's why I haven't posted much on this thread.

I know what happened to Trayvon Martin.

He was only 17, so young and unaware of any world other than his own.

His age and his naievete drove his response and when he felt that "flight" was no longer an option, he had to "fight".

The defendant's ego and prejudice drove his actions and when he realized that "flight" was not an option, he used his weapon and killed the 17 year old.

His naivete? He was expelled from school for having an empty bag with traces of marijuana, spotted for defacing lockers, spotted on a school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious" marking WTF on a door, got caught with a burglary tool and women's jewelry (12 pieces).

And his good friend, who is the Star Witness, Tweets about drinking and drugging, praying that God won't let her have a car wreck on the way home.

Did she get her marijuana from Trayvon?

Who is naive, Jermyn?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I know.

It's depressing, that's why I haven't posted much on this thread.

I know what happened to Trayvon Martin.

He was only 17, so young and unaware of any world other than his own.

His age and his naievete drove his response and when he felt that "flight" was no longer an option, he had to "fight".

The defendant was fed-up with the crime happening in his neighborhood. His sense of moral courage, ego and prejudice drove his actions and when he realized that "flight" was not an option, he used his weapon and killed the 17 year old.

Sorry but the age of TM is a pointless attempt to caricature an individual as a naive youth. There is nothing naive in the youth today. Sorry that logic does NOT hold water or as they say in the south that dog won't hunt.

17 year olds join the military.
17 year olds are older gang members.
17 year olds are fathers multiple times in some cases.

17 year olds are NOT naive.