Was Trayvon Martin Rear-Ended by Zimmerman? Z was intoxicated with own agenda and ambition

EURWeb ^ | July 9, 2013 | Larry Buford

[2ndDivisionVet]

*On Monday (7/8) the defense attorneys in the George Zimmerman trial brought forth testimony from a parade of witnesses who vouched that the screams for help on the 911 tapes were those of Zimmerman and not Trayvon Martin.

Legal analysts called it a victory for the defense, claiming the testimony of Trayvon’s father Tracy Martin was weak and contradictory. However, the father did raise one simple question that seems to be largely overlooked – why did Zimmerman leave his car in the first place to go after his son?

It would seem the prosecution’s best strategy would have been to camp on the 911 call where the dispatchers clearly instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon stating “We don’t need you to do that.” What was the timeline from that directive to the fatal shot? Zimmerman’s claim that he was looking for the name of the street location is weak. For someone who has lived on that complex for three years – to be as diligent and concerned a watchman as he portrays – and not know the location he was patrolling is incredible. Reportedly, there are only three street names throughout the entire complex.

To claim that he could not gather his thoughts through all the excitement and adrenaline flowing doesn’t add up as police and other witnesses reported that they found him to be too calm and collected for someone who had just shot another human being.

So it appears the prosecution should have focused on Zimmerman’s neglecting to follow the instruction of law enforcement professionals – that’s the cut bank where the defense would erode.

The Florida Supreme Court defines negligence as follows:

“Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence may consist either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances.” (Florida Standard Jury Instructions, 4.1).

Zimmerman’s case should be likened to a drunk driver who rear-ended another vehicle resulting in loss of life. Zimmerman was intoxicated with his own agenda and ambition, plain and simple. The trial should be focused on the initial impact – that is how Trayvon was impacted once he realized he was being followed by someone who did not identify himself as he should have.

By the way, in identifying who in fact is screaming “help” on the 911 tape, I’m reminded of a story I once heard where upon viewing her dead husband’s body a woman thought it did not resemble him and complained to the funeral director, “That’s not my husband” to which the director replied “How do you know…you’ve never seen him dead before!” So I ask, how can anyone be sure of who is in fact screaming on the tape when they’ve never heard what the person in desperation may sound like in the face of death?

[arthurus]

George wasn’t following Tray at the time, anyway, he was looking for a house number.

[AppyPappy]

Plus the 911 operator was asking “What’s he doing now?”

[Little Ray]

An operator for 911 is not a “law enforcement professional.”
Esp. give some of the crap we’ve heard from them on recorded calls.

[ASA Vet]

"Creepy Ass-Cracker"

St. Trayvon's homophobia and his girl friend teasing him about being raped, probably was the motive for St. Trayvon seeking out Zimmerman to lay the beat down on him.

[arthurus]

When a black person does it to a black person it is “dog bites man.”

[RetiredNavy]

Yes, but it did him no good, as usual.

[Resolute Conservative]

Zimmerman broke no laws. You can walk any public street you want and follow anyone you want without contact. Thug initiated contact.

[FirstFlaBn]

I mentioned last night how the left’s standard of proof is a wee bit different from the days of the OJ trial.

Remember when somebody put passages from the Unabomber’s Manifesto side-by-side with similar pronouncements by Algore? Wish somebody would do the same with lib commentators’ “analysis” of Zimmerman and OJ.

[Secret Agent Man]

I have to say, in my immediate 6 block area I can’t tell you the names of ALL the streets around me, as I don’t use all of these streets, and I don’t even drive by some of them ever. And I have lived in my neighborhood for 16 years. I know many names but I might get the order of some of the ones incorrect if I had to list them in an order away from my street.

[servo1969]

The thing I have noticed is most blacks have an Urban attitude about crime: “It’s none of my business.” That’s their big hangup about GZ getting out of his car to watch and see what this stranger was up to. “Was he bothering GZ? Then it was none of business.” and “He deserved an *ss-whoopin for not minding his own business.” Black people do not get involved. They do not help the police. They do not call the police unless something involves them personally. That’s why so many black people simply can not wrap their heads around the idea of a man stopping and getting out of his car to look investigate something or someone suspicious. You just don’t do that. To them that is just strange and indicates something is wrong with a person who would do that.

This is different from a Rural attitude. People notice things are out of place and wonder what’s up. They’ll even stop to say ‘Hi’ to a stranger and casually mine for info about what this person is doing around their neighbor’s place. Or they might call the police and say they keep seeing a strange car driving around.

[SoFloFreeper]

However, the father did raise one simple question that seems to be largely overlooked – why did Zimmerman leave his car in the first place to go after his son?

It would seem the prosecution’s best strategy would have been to camp on the 911 call where the dispatchers clearly instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon stating “We don’t need you to do that.” What was the timeline from that directive to the fatal shot?

Epic fail of analysis by whoever wrote this screed.

Zimmerman, like his attacker, was a free individual. He could roam that place whenever he pleased. Since Zimmerman LIVED there, and St. Skittles DID NOT live there, one could argue Zimmerman had more leeway to wander the complex. But I digress.

Moreover, there was no legal "directive" from the dispatcher...merely a suggestion as to how that particular person thought a report would be optimally made.

Finally, as the evidence is pointing, George's attacker got shot because he was physically threatening George's life. Period.

I end with a hilarious post from another thread on this trial:

[Arrowhead1952]

But let one white Hispanic person shoot one black person

You left out one SRM spin detail.

[Molon Labbie]

George Zimmerman invoked an ancient right and duty to protect his neighborhood.

Before there were professional police, the Reeve of the Shire, (Sheriff) decreed that all law abiding citizens had a duty to alert their neighbors to a crime being or having been committed, and then find and bring the perpetrator to the magistrate.

This was called hue and cry and failure to act meant punishment for the whole community.

Furthermore, (2A supporters will love this), all able bodied men were MANDATED to have arms and armor in their homes.

[rarestia]

My apologies. It’s been a long day.

[miss marmelstein]

The Horowitz piece was horrifying! I wonder if he thinks that his good friend Betty Van Patter shouldn’t have had a gun to blast away the Black Panthers who eventually murdered her?! As I recall, he gave her the job of being a bookkeeper for that vile group. They stole money and brutally murdered her. Supposedly that’s why he left the Left.

[Captain Rhino]

“However, the father did raise one simple question that seems to be largely overlooked – why did Zimmerman leave his car in the first place to go after his son?”

Why is it that Mr. Martin, Mr. Buford never, ever get to the second simple question that is also largely overlooked by all the other commentators on liberal/left: “If he was so scared, why didn't Travon just go home (back to the apartment) especially when he was so close to it?

Yep, they don't want ask THAT question because they know they won't like the answer:

“Travon was a little thug whose aggressiveness led to him playing an active role in his own demise.”

[Osage Orange]

Maybe the morgue?

[MrB]

I’m betting Jabba the Witness had more than a little to do with Trayvon deciding to go back and beatdown Zimmerman.

[Defiant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in America, it is legal for a racist who hates blacks and doesn't like them in his neighborhood to follow blacks from a distance and watch what they are doing? The motive for the conduct doesn't matter if the conduct is perfectly legal, right?

Also, if a racist is following you, but not doing anything to you, that is not a license to beat the holy hell out of the cracker, right?

Based on that, the premise of everything this guy, and the prosecution says, falls apart. The only issue is, who was beating on who. And the evidence is pretty much open and shut that it was St. Traydmark beating the crap out of the Peruvian-black guy.

This is just as bad, evidence-wise, as the Duke case in which the prosecutor ended up convicted. This prosecutor should, but won't, end up the same.

[KC_Conspirator]

And I agree that a manslaughter charge would be hard to prove as well. I just think that some other lesser charge would have been more appropriate, but this situation sadly has been driven by politics and race.

I know attorney's dont always get to choose their cases, but I would not want the prosecution's case either. Not good judgement, in my opinion. Btw, I know you can't control your witnesses do once they take the stand, but to me it seems like the witness prep for the prosecution was terrible.