TexasCHLforum.com

I thought the 9/11 dispatcher had said something like "We don't need you to do that" when Z said he was following TM.

Not that it should matter. 9/11 dispatchers don't need to be obeyed.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:I thought the 9/11 dispatcher had said something like "We don't need you to do that" when Z said he was following TM.

Not that it should matter. 9/11 dispatchers don't need to be obeyed.

Exactly. And on the tape, Zimmerman says, "Ok" and, according to his story, he heads back to his vehicle. There's been no evidence released to date that contradicts this.

Thanks for clearing that up; I wasn't aware that he broke off pursuit at that point. I did know that TM confronts Z later.

This whole trial angers me. I can only follow it in small bites at a time because I get so upset at what the "justice" system is doing to Z.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:Thanks for clearing that up; I wasn't aware that he broke off pursuit at that point. I did know that TM confronts Z later.

This whole trial angers me. I can only follow it in small bites at a time because I get so upset at what the "justice" system is doing to Z.

That's the real question. Did he or didn't he. He said, "ok" to the dispatcher, and he says he headed back to the vehicle. To my knowledge, there's been no physical evidence released so far to prove he did or didn't. Everything that proves he did break off is all circumstantial. What I'm curious about though, is if he didn't break off, does that justify T's attack on Z? I don't think so, but IANAL.

As for your anger issue, I'm right there with you. I'm inclined to believe the LEOs investigation. IE - There was no wrongdoing on Z's part. Foolishness, maybe. Stupidity, possibly. But criminal acts? I gotta go with the cops on this one. At least until/unless something new is released that shows Z actually murdered Z.

RottenApple wrote:That's the real question. Did he or didn't he. He said, "ok" to the dispatcher, and he says he headed back to the vehicle. To my knowledge, there's been no physical evidence released so far to prove he did or didn't.

There is no evidence to contradict his statement that he was attacked while heading back to his vehicle. Without evidence to contradict, his story has to stand. At absolute minimum, his uncontradicted account constitutes reasonable doubt.

RottenApple wrote: What I'm curious about though, is if he didn't break off, does that justify T's attack on Z? I don't think so, but IANAL.

No, I can legally walk any public place I choose and follow anyone in public that I choose to follow. That is never justification for the other party to commit aggravated assault (sidewalk against the head = deadly weapon).

I have said it over and over. This whole thing is just political persecution of Zimmerman. It has been from the start. Even Obummer got in on the act.

VoiceofReason wrote:I have said it over and over. This whole thing is just political persecution of Zimmerman. It has been from the start. Even Obummer got in on the act.

Its supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". But due to the media and the celebrities and the POTUS running their mouths, it has become a matter of GZ proving he's innocent because they have already made him guilty. And you can bet that they are doing this not only against GZ, but to set precedent in the court, as well.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Its supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". But due to the media and the celebrities and the POTUS running their mouths, it has become a matter of GZ proving he's innocent because they have already made him guilty. And you can bet that they are doing this not only against GZ, but to set precedent in the court, as well.

Ya think? Anything you say can be used against you. Anything you DON'T say can be used against you. And now they're going for guilty Neil proven innocent. It's the perfect trifecta for the liberal agenda.

Zimmerman´s parents being blocked from courtroom, but not Martin's: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -courtroom

The Annoyed Man wrote:Zimmerman´s parents being blocked from courtroom, but not Martin's: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -courtroom

Maybe the defense should add them to their witness list and get them kicked out too. This is beyond absurd.

Civilized lynching.

RottenApple wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Zimmerman´s parents being blocked from courtroom, but not Martin's: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -courtroom

Maybe the defense should add them to their witness list and get them kicked out too. This is beyond absurd.

Exactly. He's being full-on railroaded.

The lawyers argued this morning about the admissibility of the prior 911 tapes. The state wants to argue that all those previous 911 tapes (where Zimmerman reported suspicious activity in the neighborhood) show a pattern. Their argument is that his frustration with the inability to catch the BGs was building and he exploded in rage on the night he killed Trayvon. They have to argue this because it's an element of the charge, but, as the defense lawyer pointed out, they're trying to argue that previous GOOD acts led to a bad act. Quite a stretch, but frankly it's all they've got.

The trial link doesn't. seem to work today. Anyone know a link that works?

fishman wrote:The trial link doesn't. seem to work today. Anyone know a link that works?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/zimme ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;