The Prosector brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lies yesterday in his closing remarks. How his story has changed numerous times, how one second Martin is walking hurridly away from him and then he catches himself and says he was walking normially etc etc. Then Zimmerman was caught lying about his finances post arrest. I just think the man is a liar and you are asking me to take a liar at his word.
I don't buy his story...you do. Mr. Zimmerman hopes he has 12 people like you on his jury.
WOW! the prosecution brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lying... Thats great, but thats not their JOB.
Their job is to Prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Which they didn't and can't, which is why they are appealing on emotion and character assassination.
Let me remind you about the facts on Martin that were withheld from court:
1. Twitter picture smoking weed
2. Twitter pictures of him holding a gun (which was illegally obtainted - see texts)
3. Got suspended from school for fighting
4. Text messages about fighting and buying guns
This is the conduct of the person who attacked zimmerman, yet you think because be lied about finances that he's the aggressor?
So in your opinion:
Zimmerman lying about his finances = He didn't act in self defense? Prove it with evidence.
Are you even watching the trial? 6 women make up the jury not 12
It doesnt matter what Martin did in his past. He's not on trial. He lost his right to go to trial when he was shot dead.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
The Prosector brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lies yesterday in his closing remarks. How his story has changed numerous times, how one second Martin is walking hurridly away from him and then he catches himself and says he was walking normially etc etc. Then Zimmerman was caught lying about his finances post arrest. I just think the man is a liar and you are asking me to take a liar at his word.
I don't buy his story...you do. Mr. Zimmerman hopes he has 12 people like you on his jury.
WOW! the prosecution brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lying... Thats great, but thats not their JOB.
Their job is to Prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Which they didn't and can't, which is why they are appealing on emotion and character assassination.
Let me remind you about the facts on Martin that were withheld from court:
1. Twitter picture smoking weed
2. Twitter pictures of him holding a gun (which was illegally obtainted - see texts)
3. Got suspended from school for fighting
4. Text messages about fighting and buying guns
This is the conduct of the person who attacked zimmerman, yet you think because be lied about finances that he's the aggressor?
So in your opinion:
Zimmerman lying about his finances = He didn't act in self defense? Prove it with evidence.
Are you even watching the trial? 6 women make up the jury not 12
It doesnt matter what Martin did in his past. He's not on trial. He lost his right to go to trial when he was shot dead.
If it dosent matter what Martin did in his past, why does it matter that zimmerman lied about his finances. Are his finances on trial?
His Finances aren't on trial but what is on trial is Zimmerman's word. It's all we really have to go on since there are no witnesses that saw the entire incident. There is no evidence of Zimmerman's life being in danger.
What we have is Zimmerman's word so his history of lying and calling in false police reports matter to me. To you it doesn't. We've established this.
Since you ask questions of me I'll ask one of you. Do you really think a 150 pound teenager could hold down and dominate a 200 pound man? Do you belive the 200 pound man had no other choice to get away other than shoot?
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Another important element that i'm surprised no one is talking about here is whether or not it was NECESSARY for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon to get out of the situation he was in. Was the amount of force Zimmerman used necessary?
And did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his life wasn't in danger by their evidence?
Answer - No, they continued to change their story/theories and charges (child abuse).
His Finances aren't on trial but what is on trial is Zimmerman's word. It's all we really have to go on since there are no witnesses that saw the entire incident. There is no evidence of Zimmerman's life being in danger.
What we have is Zimmerman's word so his history of lying and calling in false police reports matter to me. To you it doesn't. We've established this.
Since you ask questions of me I'll ask one of you. Do you really think a 150 pound teenager could hold down and dominate a 200 pound man? Do you belive the 200 pound man had no other choice to get away other than shoot?
Please prove with evidence that was used in court that shows Zimmermans life wasn't in danger...
You also seem dismiss alot of the facts zimmerman has stated that have been factual and proven, mainly the evens and how they happened that night. Which have all be upheld in testimony...
Again, you don't seem to understand how our court systems works. He is innocent until proven guilty. So you have to prove his life was not in danger.
His Finances aren't on trial but what is on trial is Zimmerman's word. It's all we really have to go on since there are no witnesses that saw the entire incident. There is no evidence of Zimmerman's life being in danger.
What we have is Zimmerman's word so his history of lying and calling in false police reports matter to me. To you it doesn't. We've established this.
Since you ask questions of me I'll ask one of you. Do you really think a 150 pound teenager could hold down and dominate a 200 pound man? Do you belive the 200 pound man had no other choice to get away other than shoot?
Please prove with evidence that was used in court that shows Zimmermans life wasn't in danger...
You also seem dismiss alot of the facts zimmerman has stated that have been factual and proven, mainly the evens and how they happened that night. Which have all be upheld in testimony...
Again, you don't seem to understand how our court systems works. He is innocent until proven guilty. So you have to prove his life was not in danger.
Thanks for answering my questions. I'm not debating whether he gets off or not. I'm debating that I think he acted in way that led to a teenagers death and if I was on the jury I'd lean towards guilty and defintely on the manslaugher charge.
You are arguing like a lawyer which is fine but that is not what I was doing...I was arguing what I believe happened that night.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Another important element that i'm surprised no one is talking about here is whether or not it was NECESSARY for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon to get out of the situation he was in. Was the amount of force Zimmerman used necessary?
And did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his life wasn't in danger by their evidence?
Answer - No, they continued to change their story/theories and charges (child abuse).
Personally, I believe they did when the forensic specialist said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial.
If there were pictures admited of him the day after his attack, I believe MANY people would think using deadly force was unnecessary.
And outside of court, there was that little video of the drama queen Zimmerman walking through the re-enactment saying "they thought" he needed stitches, but "they" decided not to do stitches. :? :fp:
His Finances aren't on trial but what is on trial is Zimmerman's word. It's all we really have to go on since there are no witnesses that saw the entire incident. There is no evidence of Zimmerman's life being in danger.
What we have is Zimmerman's word so his history of lying and calling in false police reports matter to me. To you it doesn't. We've established this.
Since you ask questions of me I'll ask one of you. Do you really think a 150 pound teenager could hold down and dominate a 200 pound man? Do you belive the 200 pound man had no other choice to get away other than shoot?
Please prove with evidence that was used in court that shows Zimmermans life wasn't in danger...
You also seem dismiss alot of the facts zimmerman has stated that have been factual and proven, mainly the evens and how they happened that night. Which have all be upheld in testimony...
Again, you don't seem to understand how our court systems works. He is innocent until proven guilty. So you have to prove his life was not in danger.
Thanks for answering my questions. I'm not debating whether he gets off or not. I'm debating that I think he acted in way that led to a teenagers death and if I was on the jury I'd lean towards guilty and defintely on the manslaugher charge.
You are arguing like a lawyer which is fine but that is not what I was doing...I was arguing what I believe happened that night.
Also don't ever assume what I know and don't know ever again. When you assume you make an ass out of both you and me and I don't like looking like an ass. Thanks.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Another important element that i'm surprised no one is talking about here is whether or not it was NECESSARY for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon to get out of the situation he was in. Was the amount of force Zimmerman used necessary?
And did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his life wasn't in danger by their evidence?
Answer - No, they continued to change their story/theories and charges (child abuse).
Personally, I believe they did when the forensic specialist said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial.
If there were pictures admited of him the day after his attack, I believe MANY people would think using deadly force was unnecessary.
And outside of court, there was that little video of the drama queen Zimmerman walking through the re-enactment saying "they thought" he needed stitches, but "they" decided not to do stitches. :? :fp:
So now the severity of the injuries inflicted on you are indicative of the threat to your life?
So if you don't receive any injuries, then you could never act in self defense?
Well I hope an armed robber doesn't break into your house, because according to your logic, you will have to let him shoot you first before you can retaliate.
And did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his life wasn't in danger by their evidence?
Answer - No, they continued to change their story/theories and charges (child abuse).
Personally, I believe they did when the forensic specialist said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial.
If there were pictures admited of him the day after his attack, I believe MANY people would think using deadly force was unnecessary.
And outside of court, there was that little video of the drama queen Zimmerman walking through the re-enactment saying "they thought" he needed stitches, but "they" decided not to do stitches. :? :fp:
So now the severity of the injuries inflicted on you are indicative of the threat to your life?
So if you don't receive any injuries, then you could never act in self defense?
Well I hope an armed robber doesn't break into your house, because according to your logic, you will have to let him shoot you first before you can retaliate.
Dont be ridiculous. It depends on the situation. And yes, the severity of his injuries in this case is in question.. that is why the expert was called in. The jury heard that part, and it was highlighted in the jury instructions as I posted earlier. If Zimmerman had zero injuries he'd be in jail for life already.
How else do you judge a subjective law that asks if a person felt like their life was in danger? So, someone on the street looks at me funny and I think they are a threat to me, it's Ok for me to shoot them in the heart? Got it.
And I believe self defense laws are different in your house and in public. What a silly comparison.
Dont be ridiculous. It depends on the situation. And yes, the severity of his injuries in this case is in question.. that is why the expert was called in. The jury heard that part, and it was highlighted in the jury instructions as I posted earlier. If Zimmerman had zero injuries he'd be in jail for life already.
How else do you judge a subjective law that asks if a person felt like their life was in danger? So, someone on the street looks at me funny and I think they are a threat to me, it's Ok for me to shoot them in the heart? Got it.
And I believe self defense laws are different in your house and in public. What a silly comparison.
Where do you draw the line at "severity of injury". Because if you convict him on this so called severity of his injuries then every female raped or attemped to be raped has just forfeited the right to self defense. Where is the severity of injury if all they have is ripped clothes and an "attemped rapist" with a gun shot to the heart and there is no one around to witness it?
What I don't think you understand is that, the state has to prove that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
Dont be ridiculous. It depends on the situation. And yes, the severity of his injuries in this case is in question.. that is why the expert was called in. The jury heard that part, and it was highlighted in the jury instructions as I posted earlier. If Zimmerman had zero injuries he'd be in jail for life already.
How else do you judge a subjective law that asks if a person felt like their life was in danger? So, someone on the street looks at me funny and I think they are a threat to me, it's Ok for me to shoot them in the heart? Got it.
And I believe self defense laws are different in your house and in public. What a silly comparison.
Where do you draw the line at "severity of injury". Because if you convict him on this so called severity of his injuries then every female raped or attemped to be raped has just forfeited the right to self defense. Where is the severity of injury if all they have is ripped clothes and an "attemped rapist" with a gun shot to the heart and there is no one around to witness it?
What I don't think you understand is that, the state has to prove that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
Thats my point, it's subjective. And obviously, we treat rape cases differently than home invasions or street fights.
I was convinced that during a street fight between a 17 year old and 29 year old, that Zimmerman went to far. How else can you determine how threatened he was? We have his word, that's it.
Also, We're talking about the Zimmerman/Trayon case here...anytime others go off course, you demand they talk about the evidence in the case.. that's wha tI brought up, and you're dancing around it. My point was to discuss what was brought up regarding Zimmermans possible threat level and what the jury instructions are.
Legally if Zimmerman beleived he was in danger it's self defense, which sucks for the Prosecution. It doesn't matter if he was right or not. While I don't like it that is how he is going to get off Murder 2. I still think he gets Manslaughter as wrongful death is easier to prove in this case.
He defintely will lose the civil trial if Martin's parents go that route.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I disagree with you johnny p. Severity of injuries are irrelevant when the question of fear is involved. He was punched in the nose. That alone would be enough for him to pull out his gun and shoot him in self defense. The cuts on his head are irrelevant at that point.
A guy on CNN said it best when he said that if a woman walked into a police station with the exact same injuries as Zimmerman, and claimed her husband did it, those injuries would be considered "great bodily harm." But since its a 200lb man, the injuries are irrelevant? You can't have it both ways.
Dont be ridiculous. It depends on the situation. And yes, the severity of his injuries in this case is in question.. that is why the expert was called in. The jury heard that part, and it was highlighted in the jury instructions as I posted earlier. If Zimmerman had zero injuries he'd be in jail for life already.
How else do you judge a subjective law that asks if a person felt like their life was in danger? So, someone on the street looks at me funny and I think they are a threat to me, it's Ok for me to shoot them in the heart? Got it.
And I believe self defense laws are different in your house and in public. What a silly comparison.
Where do you draw the line at "severity of injury". Because if you convict him on this so called severity of his injuries then every female raped or attemped to be raped has just forfeited the right to self defense. Where is the severity of injury if all they have is ripped clothes and an "attemped rapist" with a gun shot to the heart and there is no one around to witness it?
What I don't think you understand is that, the state has to prove that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
Thats my point, it's subjective. And obviously, we treat rape cases differently than home invasions or street fights.
I was convinced that during a street fight between a 17 year old and 29 year old, that Zimmerman went to far. How else can you determine how threatened he was? We have his word, that's it.
Also, We're talking about the Zimmerman/Trayon case here...anytime others go off course, you demand they talk about the evidence in the case.. that's wha tI brought up, and you're dancing around it. My point was to discuss what was brought up regarding Zimmermans possible threat level and what the jury instructions are.
But they can't PROVE the "threat" level, they can only speculate and assume.
That is not what our justice system is about, they need to prove that martin was NOT a threat, but they can't because zimmerman/witness have prof what he said was true, that Martin was on top of zimmerman, even the state agrees with that. Judging by that fact that martin was on top and had struck/slammed zimmermans head, how can you reasonably say that his life wasn't in danger? Because he didn't get stitches. You do realize that internal head wounds are if not more sever than external head wounds needing stitches. Hitting your head once on concrete can knock you out or concusst you. Again, assumptions but zimmerman does not have to prove that, the state does.
This is from the jury instructions I posted earlier:
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual(this is good for Zimmermans case); however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force (<--This is bad for Zimmerman). Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
***
Now, there are several things in these above instructions that work in favor of Zimmerman (you'll be happy to see)
But at the same time, I thiunk these instructions will remind jurors about the testimony of the specialist who said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial, which I take as not life threatening.
The only assumptions I made was that he chose to attack Zimmerman, which is the States job to PROVE that it didn't happen that way. Do you know how our justice system works?
Its innocent until proven guilty.
So, among the assumptions you have made, are 1) that Martin chose to attack Zimmerman and 2) that the dead 17 year old is guilty.
This is from the jury instructions I posted earlier:
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual(this is good for Zimmermans case); however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force (<--This is bad for Zimmerman). Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
***
Now, there are several things in these above instructions that work in favor of Zimmerman (you'll be happy to see)
But at the same time, I thiunk these instructions will remind jurors about the testimony of the specialist who said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial, which I take as not life threatening.
GZ must have actually believed that the danger was real. I'm pretty sure that's apparent. He was punched in the face
Judging by that fact that martin was on top and had struck/slammed zimmermans head, how can you reasonably say that his life wasn't in danger? Because he didn't get stitches. You do realize that internal head wounds are if not more sever than external head wounds needing stitches. Hitting your head once on concrete can knock you out or concusst you. Again, assumptions but zimmerman does not have to prove that, the state does.
You yell at everyone else for making assumptions, and now this?!
Again, to you and Last exit: I agree, this is not clear cut, but again, I'm talking about what the jurors saw. His injuries are important. It isnt the deciding factor obviously, but it does weigh on whether or not deadly force was required. Its a piece of the puzzle. You can deny it all you want.
it was admissible in court, so it is being considered, and I feel it matters because (again) if Zimmerman walked away with zero injuries he'd be in jail for life, no doubt. And how many fights happen every day in bars, streets, playgrounds, workplaces?? Is it ok to kill someone as a result of a street fight? A precedent will be set.
He's guilty. He wanted a confrontation so he can shoot Martin and claim self-defense. He disobeyed the police who told him to stop following him. He got out of his car (again, hoping for a confrontation). And he shot the kid. I'm not interested in what happened between Zimmerman getting out of the car and the gun shot. Any aggressiveness from Martin was because he felt he was defending himself against a guy that was stalking him.
He's guilty. He wanted a confrontation so he can shoot Martin and claim self-defense. He disobeyed the police who told him to stop following him. He got out of his car (again, hoping for a confrontation). And he shot the kid. I'm not interested in what happened between Zimmerman getting out of the car and the gun shot. Any aggressiveness from Martin was because he felt he was defending himself against a guy that was stalking him.
What case have you been listening to?
-He wanted to shoot Martin? If this was the case, he would be charged with 1st degree murder.
-He disobeyed police? No, he didn't follow the direction of a dispatcher. Dispatchers aren not policeman.
-He got out of the car looking for a confrontation? I havnt heard any evidence to support this. He got out of the car to find an address. That's the only testimony regarding that. Anything else is speculation.
-Martin was defending himself? How do you defend yourself when you throw the first punch?
-Zimmerman was stalking Martin? Following someone isn't stalkin nor is it against the law.
Its one thing to express your opinion, its quite another to take the facts of the case and totally disregard them.
He's guilty. He wanted a confrontation so he can shoot Martin and claim self-defense. He disobeyed the police who told him to stop following him. He got out of his car (again, hoping for a confrontation). And he shot the kid. I'm not interested in what happened between Zimmerman getting out of the car and the gun shot. Any aggressiveness from Martin was because he felt he was defending himself against a guy that was stalking him.
What case have you been listening to?
-He wanted to shoot Martin? If this was the case, he would be charged with 1st degree murder.
-He disobeyed police? No, he didn't follow the direction of a dispatcher. Dispatchers aren not policeman.
-He got out of the car looking for a confrontation? I havnt heard any evidence to support this. He got out of the car to find an address. That's the only testimony regarding that. Anything else is speculation.
-Martin was defending himself? How do you defend yourself when you throw the first punch?
-Zimmerman was stalking Martin? Following someone isn't stalkin nor is it against the law.
Its one thing to express your opinion, its quite another to take the facts of the case and totally disregard them.
-I'm just saying I think he wanted to shoot him. Of course it can't be proven and so that's why it's not a 1st degree murder case.
-Dispatchers aren't policeman. True. But they work for the police and speak for the police and told Zimmerman that officers were on the way and to stay away.
-Yeah I know it's speculation dude. That's why he's gonna get off and it sucks. But if he felt Martin was a danger to him, then why did he get out the car? Who walks up to someone that is a danger to them? Nobody...unless they have a gun.
-Following somebody kinda is stalking somebody. Not against the law. But still. Some kid walking by himself isn't a threat to anybody and so there's no reason for Zimmerman to be following him...like a wannabe cop.
Yeah, I don't disagree that engagement is probably not the best idea. But would a 17 year old agree? In the spur of the moment like that I can understand why he may have approached Zimmerman.
Western Mass can be like a different world. When I was in college I worked as a Pharmacy Tech in Holyoke. Growing up in Framingham prepared me not at all for some of the things I saw there, which was shocking. You and your buddies made the right call for sure.
I didn't realize how rough Holyoke was until I drove through some of the bad parts. Haven't been there in ages, but I can tell you downtown Springfield has progressively gotten even worse from when I was in school there (late 90s/early 00s). I can only imagine what's going on in Holyoke.
did trayvon live in the neighborhood he was killer in ? I don't remember.
Godfather.
I dont think it was his permanent residence. I believe it was his dad's house and he normally lived with his mom down near Miami. But he was living with his dad temporarily form wha tI recall.
I love how the prosecution charge him with 2nd degree murder and the they give the jury the option to convict him of manslaughter, but not 3rd degree ... :fp:
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I really can't wrap my head around two things.
1) That Zimmerman didn't know what street he was on. Not consistant with being on Neighborhood watch. He couldn't stay in his car for this information? I've never had to get of my car to gain an address.
2) If Zimmerman was such a wimp why he would even put himself at risk. I know when I'm at my most out of shape I don't put myself in a position where someone I deem suspicious would confront me. Of course I don't own a gun...
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Comments
It doesnt matter what Martin did in his past. He's not on trial. He lost his right to go to trial when he was shot dead.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
What we have is Zimmerman's word so his history of lying and calling in false police reports matter to me. To you it doesn't. We've established this.
Since you ask questions of me I'll ask one of you. Do you really think a 150 pound teenager could hold down and dominate a 200 pound man? Do you belive the 200 pound man had no other choice to get away other than shoot?
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Answer - No, they continued to change their story/theories and charges (child abuse).
When I asked it if Sanford will be burnt to the ground, it answered "yes definitely".
:?
When asked if the Colts will make it to the Super Bowl, it answered "signs point to yes". :P
You also seem dismiss alot of the facts zimmerman has stated that have been factual and proven, mainly the evens and how they happened that night. Which have all be upheld in testimony...
Again, you don't seem to understand how our court systems works. He is innocent until proven guilty. So you have to prove his life was not in danger.
Thanks for answering my questions. I'm not debating whether he gets off or not. I'm debating that I think he acted in way that led to a teenagers death and if I was on the jury I'd lean towards guilty and defintely on the manslaugher charge.
You are arguing like a lawyer which is fine but that is not what I was doing...I was arguing what I believe happened that night.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Personally, I believe they did when the forensic specialist said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial.
If there were pictures admited of him the day after his attack, I believe MANY people would think using deadly force was unnecessary.
And outside of court, there was that little video of the drama queen Zimmerman walking through the re-enactment saying "they thought" he needed stitches, but "they" decided not to do stitches. :? :fp:
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I've been to Sanford Florida, Not a Big Loss.
So if you don't receive any injuries, then you could never act in self defense?
Well I hope an armed robber doesn't break into your house, because according to your logic, you will have to let him shoot you first before you can retaliate.
Dont be ridiculous. It depends on the situation. And yes, the severity of his injuries in this case is in question.. that is why the expert was called in. The jury heard that part, and it was highlighted in the jury instructions as I posted earlier. If Zimmerman had zero injuries he'd be in jail for life already.
How else do you judge a subjective law that asks if a person felt like their life was in danger? So, someone on the street looks at me funny and I think they are a threat to me, it's Ok for me to shoot them in the heart? Got it.
And I believe self defense laws are different in your house and in public. What a silly comparison.
What I don't think you understand is that, the state has to prove that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
Thats my point, it's subjective. And obviously, we treat rape cases differently than home invasions or street fights.
I was convinced that during a street fight between a 17 year old and 29 year old, that Zimmerman went to far. How else can you determine how threatened he was? We have his word, that's it.
Also, We're talking about the Zimmerman/Trayon case here...anytime others go off course, you demand they talk about the evidence in the case.. that's wha tI brought up, and you're dancing around it. My point was to discuss what was brought up regarding Zimmermans possible threat level and what the jury instructions are.
He defintely will lose the civil trial if Martin's parents go that route.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
A guy on CNN said it best when he said that if a woman walked into a police station with the exact same injuries as Zimmerman, and claimed her husband did it, those injuries would be considered "great bodily harm." But since its a 200lb man, the injuries are irrelevant? You can't have it both ways.
That is not what our justice system is about, they need to prove that martin was NOT a threat, but they can't because zimmerman/witness have prof what he said was true, that Martin was on top of zimmerman, even the state agrees with that. Judging by that fact that martin was on top and had struck/slammed zimmermans head, how can you reasonably say that his life wasn't in danger? Because he didn't get stitches. You do realize that internal head wounds are if not more sever than external head wounds needing stitches. Hitting your head once on concrete can knock you out or concusst you. Again, assumptions but zimmerman does not have to prove that, the state does.
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual (this is good for Zimmermans case); however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force (<--This is bad for Zimmerman). Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
***
Now, there are several things in these above instructions that work in favor of Zimmerman (you'll be happy to see)
But at the same time, I thiunk these instructions will remind jurors about the testimony of the specialist who said Zimmerman's injuries were not substantial, which I take as not life threatening.
So, among the assumptions you have made, are 1) that Martin chose to attack Zimmerman and 2) that the dead 17 year old is guilty.
Got it, thanks.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
GZ must have actually believed that the danger was real. I'm pretty sure that's apparent. He was punched in the face
Again, to you and Last exit: I agree, this is not clear cut, but again, I'm talking about what the jurors saw. His injuries are important. It isnt the deciding factor obviously, but it does weigh on whether or not deadly force was required. Its a piece of the puzzle. You can deny it all you want.
it was admissible in court, so it is being considered, and I feel it matters because (again) if Zimmerman walked away with zero injuries he'd be in jail for life, no doubt. And how many fights happen every day in bars, streets, playgrounds, workplaces?? Is it ok to kill someone as a result of a street fight? A precedent will be set.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
-He wanted to shoot Martin? If this was the case, he would be charged with 1st degree murder.
-He disobeyed police? No, he didn't follow the direction of a dispatcher. Dispatchers aren not policeman.
-He got out of the car looking for a confrontation? I havnt heard any evidence to support this. He got out of the car to find an address. That's the only testimony regarding that. Anything else is speculation.
-Martin was defending himself? How do you defend yourself when you throw the first punch?
-Zimmerman was stalking Martin? Following someone isn't stalkin nor is it against the law.
Its one thing to express your opinion, its quite another to take the facts of the case and totally disregard them.
-I'm just saying I think he wanted to shoot him. Of course it can't be proven and so that's why it's not a 1st degree murder case.
-Dispatchers aren't policeman. True. But they work for the police and speak for the police and told Zimmerman that officers were on the way and to stay away.
-Yeah I know it's speculation dude. That's why he's gonna get off and it sucks. But if he felt Martin was a danger to him, then why did he get out the car? Who walks up to someone that is a danger to them? Nobody...unless they have a gun.
-Following somebody kinda is stalking somebody. Not against the law. But still. Some kid walking by himself isn't a threat to anybody and so there's no reason for Zimmerman to be following him...like a wannabe cop.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Godfather.
I didn't realize how rough Holyoke was until I drove through some of the bad parts. Haven't been there in ages, but I can tell you downtown Springfield has progressively gotten even worse from when I was in school there (late 90s/early 00s). I can only imagine what's going on in Holyoke.
I dont think it was his permanent residence. I believe it was his dad's house and he normally lived with his mom down near Miami. But he was living with his dad temporarily form wha tI recall.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
1) That Zimmerman didn't know what street he was on. Not consistant with being on Neighborhood watch. He couldn't stay in his car for this information? I've never had to get of my car to gain an address.
2) If Zimmerman was such a wimp why he would even put himself at risk. I know when I'm at my most out of shape I don't put myself in a position where someone I deem suspicious would confront me. Of course I don't own a gun...
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I also believe there will be riots where innocent people are going to be hurt and killed. Be vigilant everyone.