<p>Are the police in that area so inept/corrupt that they couldn’t be expected to handle such matters?</p>
<p>
If it helps you to understand, the important part of that statement was Do not confront!. For that matter, the person who set up the watch said that they were told not to confront anyone “suspicious”, and I think the 911 call at least indicates that level of concern in Zimmerman, however inaccurately.</p>
<p>zm, It’s on my list and I will definitely read it this summer! It may not be until August, when I’m on vacation, but I will post when I do!</p>
<p>
Neither this report nor any other yet released offer any specifics to contradict the minor nature of the injury as indicated by the actual medical examiner. The only specifics given indicate a single minor abrasion on a single finger - that this report expands this to “knuckles” without detail does not to me indicate more information, but rather less.</p>
<p>re: Neighborhood Watch Guidelines</p>
<p>[City</a> of Orlando, Florida Police Department - Citizen Neighborhood Watch Program](<a href=“http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/citizen_info/neighborhood_watch.htm]City”>http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/citizen_info/neighborhood_watch.htm)</p>
<p>I’ve posted this before. Here are the highlights:
- NW members serve solely as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement
- Do not approach, follow or make any contact with suspicious persons or vehicles
- Do not take action on your observations
- Only trained law enforcement should take action</p>
<p>There is no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin after being advised to stop. BUT even if he was that’s not a crime and is really irrelevant to the case. All that matters is who threw the first punch and whether a reasonable person would have fear grave bodily injury.</p>
<p>“Way to accuse someone of lying when it doesn’t fit your narrative.”</p>
<p>Here is the Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report. No injuries to knuckles.</p>
<p><a href=“http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf[/url]”>http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf</a></p>
<p>There is definitely evidence that Z followed after being told not to. Look at the walk-through statement by Zimmerman himself or carefully read the 911 call with the dispatcher towards the end.</p>
<p>“There is no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin after being advised to stop.”</p>
<p>And there is no evidence that TM doubled back to accost GZ.</p>
<p>^However, not following these rules does not constitute a crime so his action of following/observing should not be considered when analyzing what happened. Stupid, yes–but not against the law.</p>
<p>I’ve watched Zimmerman’s walk through, he’s very clear once told to stop following he stopped following, walked through a path to get an address, started walking back to his truck and was attacked. What evidence is there that this isn’t true?</p>
<p>And I agree NewHope, we have no proof of who threw the first punch. How can you convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt when there’s no proof either way.</p>
<p>
His training was to NOT follow him, and while the dispatcher never said “stop”, “We don’t need you to do that” is pretty close.</p>
<p>
Actually, yes it is. Mindset and intentions are extremely relevant. The defense is certainly going after all of Martin’s actions with a fine-toothed comb!</p>
<p>
Zimmerman is the only person who can tell us who threw the first punch, and his testimony is suspect.</p>
<p>Does it disturb you that a 17 year old died?</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the abrasion on TM’s ring finger occurred when GZ stripped the body of jewelry? </p>
<p>(Since there’s no evidence GZ didn’t strip the body, then it must be true right?)</p>
<p>
Because with an affirmative defense it is up to the person making the assertion to prove it. In other words, for this case the burden of proof falls on Zimmerman, not the state. He needs to prove that it was self-defense, the state does not need to definitively prove that it wasn’t.</p>
<p>I disagree. The evidence that George was following Trayvon was his admission that he was when asked by Sean in the NEN call; thereafter, George disregarded the original agreement to meet at his truck and told the dispatcher to just have the officer call him when he got in the area so that he could tell him where he was at - leaving the presumption that George was going to continue to look for Trayvon. Also, the fact that Trayvon’s body was located 47’ south of the T and away from George’s truck is circumstantial evidence that George continued to look for Trayvon and found him - in fact, more than one witness places George down south of the T - which is the opposite direction of his truck. </p>
<p>I am afraid there is more to this case than “who threw the first punch.” First, there is an ear witness that indicates that Trayvon told her that he thought he had lost George only for George to be coming towards him again but this time on foot - and that when Trayvon asked George why he was following him, George responded “what are you doing around here” or words to that effect. The next thing that this witness heard was what she believed was Trayvon being bumped and him saying, “get off, get off”. </p>
<p>So, there is much more to this case than “who threw the first punch.” Based upon the above facts, there are several laws that come into play, including Trayvon’s right to the SYG law.</p>
<p>Thus far, there has been no evidence elicited that can substantiate that Trayvon ever punched George or bashed George’s head into concrete. There is no DNA on his hands or cuffs of his shirts. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that George was not already injured and bleeding when he first confronted Trayvon.</p>
<p>And now back to our regular thread content …</p>
<p>Do we know who will be testifying tomorrow? Has Good finished his testimony?</p>
<p>There are no winners in this whole sad affair. Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman’s life is all but over no matter what the outcome of trial is.</p>
<p>It is not a surprise that residents of Sanford are often on edge about potential crime…about 96% of the cities in the U.S. are safer than Sanford, only about 4% of U.S. cities have higher rates of crime. Little Sanford, Florida is riddled with violent crime almost everyday.</p>
<p>[Sanford</a> FL crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout](<a href=“The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)”>Sanford, FL Crime Rates and Statistics - NeighborhoodScout)</p>
<p>“I’ve watched Zimmerman’s walk through, he’s very clear once told to stop following he stopped following, walked through a path to get an address, started walking back to his truck and was attacked. What evidence is there that this isn’t true?”</p>
<p>Again, you take what Zimmerman says as the gospel truth but you do not carefully examine the evidence. In the call, it was about 12 seconds after he left the car when the officer told him to stop following. But the shooting occurred about 3 minutes later. He said that he left the car to find a street sign, but in the walk-through, he said he walked up several hundreds yards pass the T and then back, looking for what I don’t know and then TM was shot about 40 feet south of the T. This all happened after he finished the call with the dispatcher.</p>
<p>cosmicfish in florida that’s just not true:</p>
<p>“Six years ago in Murray v. State 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:”</p>
<p>That’s why Zimmerman’s not going to testify anymore, jonathan good introduced proof so now the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Good luck with that</p>