Trayvon Martin

BinauralJam

JonnyPistachio wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I have zero plans for rioting, looting, or public nudity.

Disappointing

Well, I was insinuating this in response to the jury decision. I may still riot, loot, or streak for no reason whatsoever. :P

Floridan's

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Zimmerman is going to walk. Every prosecution witness except the girlfriend has been gold for the defense.

it is still early. the prosection is going to hammer zimmerman on his inconsistencies. i would not be that shocked if zimmerman ends up taking the stand before this is all over.

why did the screaming stop? if i shot someone i would be screaming for someone to call 911. that did not happen on the tapes, so that tells me that it might have been trayvon screaming prior to being shot.

i have not seen a lot of the pics, what was the blood splatter like on zimmerman? if trayvon was on top of him and zimmerman shot upwards at him, would gravity not pull the blood down on top of zimmerman? i dunno, i am just thinking out loud.

From what I've heard, read, and seen so far, the inconsistencies are very weak.I know its early and I don't know all the facts. The lead investigator said he felt Zimmerman was truthful. I'm not sure what kind of case the prosecution has left.

I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.

JonnyPistachio

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.

I think the prosecution has a shot, but Im still guessing that Zimmerman walks. Florida = :fp:
And this might be the one case where the public pressure to arrest him might have helped, so its not entirely crazy to think they went to trial over something without great evidence.

BinauralJam wrote:

Floridan's

and its not even really hot yet.

JonnyPistachio

2:02 p.m. ET: Prosecutor John Guy has called chief medical examiner for Duval County, Florida Dr. Valerie Rao to the stand. Rao was brought on to the case some time after incident. She did not conduct Martin's autopsy.

2:04 p.m. ET: Rao is explaining the field of forensic pathologist to the jury. She is also explaining her work experience and education.

2:06 p.m. ET: Guy has asked Rao to explain "blunt force trauma" to the jury.

2:11 p.m. ET: Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant." The did not require any "sutures."

2:13 p.m. ET: Zimmerman only needed some "bandaids" according to Rao.

2:16 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.

Rao said Zimmerman's facial injuries could have been caused by a single blow to the face. She believes the facial injuries are not consistent with someone who was punched a dozen times as Zimmerman said in the interview with Hannity that was just played for the jury.

2:18 p.m. ET: Rao said she believes Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with someone who had their head slammed into concrete repeatedly.

gimmesometruth27

JonnyPistachio wrote:

2:02 p.m. ET: Prosecutor John Guy has called chief medical examiner for Duval County, Florida Dr. Valerie Rao to the stand. Rao was brought on to the case some time after incident. She did not conduct Martin's autopsy.

2:04 p.m. ET: Rao is explaining the field of forensic pathologist to the jury. She is also explaining her work experience and education.

2:06 p.m. ET: Guy has asked Rao to explain "blunt force trauma" to the jury.

2:11 p.m. ET: Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant." The did not require any "sutures."

2:13 p.m. ET: Zimmerman only needed some "bandaids" according to Rao.

2:16 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.

Rao said Zimmerman's facial injuries could have been caused by a single blow to the face. She believes the facial injuries are not consistent with someone who was punched a dozen times as Zimmerman said in the interview with Hannity that was just played for the jury.

2:18 p.m. ET: Rao said she believes Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with someone who had their head slammed into concrete repeatedly.

wow. that is another inconsistency in zimmerman's story. as i said earlier in the thread, zimmerman's injuries that i saw did not look that bad. maybe trayvon punched him one time in the face and his head went back and bounced off of the concrete one time? that is something that is possible.

Last-12-Exit

How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?

gimmesometruth27

Last-12-Exit wrote:

How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?

dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back... have you?

it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.

Last-12-Exit

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?

dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back...

it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.

So you know that if hit hard enough, things sometimes feels out of place. The seeing stars effect. I'm not saying that's what happened in zimmermans case, but its a possibility. As far as the ME, when cross examined, omeara got her to say that its possible that his head could have hit the concrete as many as 4 times.

During your fights, do you know exactly how many times you were hit during a flurry of punches?

All of this shows that the prosecution has a very weak case. They have to proove that Zimmerman went out seeking Martin with evil intent. From what I've heard, its not there.

otter

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.

Let's not forget that the US Federal Gov't inserted race into this thing. I mean the President actually said that the dead guy could look like his son (if he had one). I think when the President shows that he is interested in something shit happens.

otter

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?

dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back... have you?

it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.

Yo Last 12...9 mma fights, 3 busted noses, and 1 time eating punches held on your back are plenty, please stop.

Gotta explain a couple of facts...
1. the whole beating Zimmerman took lasted less than 15 seconds according to the witnesses.
2. Georgie-boy never lost consciences so he was moving his head and resisting getting his head bashed into the cement. So he had 15 seconds worth of lumps and cuts from the concrete.
3. the witness, named Good i think, said he saw Trayvon's arms swinging down multiple times while Zimmerman was yelling.

None of this really matters because Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong at all.

Here is the thing no one seems to get ----

The beating by Trayvon might not have killed him in itself. But there was a gun within both people's reach; if Zimmerman lost consciences....that's it....anyone would clearly believe they would be killed by THE gun.

Trayvon was wrong for not going to his Dad. He was obviously not scared. Who is more likely to seek out a fight? A tough 17 year old or a married, 27 year old, wimp? I mean really...

The cops let him go free. There is no case here; it is totally self defense.

It's interesting how the prosecution is putting all this evidence on. I think it's because they didn't want to prosecute so they are simply putting all the facts out there all of which completely back up every single aspect of Zimmerman's story. Well, it's a fact they didn't want to prosecute but hey the people insisted.

otter

Godfather. wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

...if zimmerman is found innocent. LA riots will seem small.

what are you implying?

he's right, the chances of a riot started by the black communitys is high if zimmerman walks,history proves that.

Godfather.

Nah...Jamie Fox and Chris Rock don't have that much influence. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I mean he did nothing wrong...all the evidence proves he did nothing wrong. Trayvon got annoyed and decided to kick some ass. Trayvon was in a rage beating Zimmerman. The punch to the nose would have been enough...he could have left at that point...but he choose to continue pummeling the crazy ass cracker. A gun appeared and if he got it he would have used it.

People may attempt to riot but it will be quickly diffused because people are reasonable. Trayvon made decisions that cost him his life. This whole thing will disperse like a big blunt hit in the air.

goingtoverona

i don't understand how a person can stalk a child with a gun who committed no crime, shoot and kill him, then say nothing was done wrong. that's falling 30 yards short of making any sense to me. but different opinions lead to good debates, i would be the complete opposite of otter in saying that trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong and was straight up murdered. not really understanding what age or marriage has to with your view either. makes no sense. when you're 17 you're a tough goon, but when you hit late 20's and get married you're a big softy? where does that come from? hello??? trayvon was buying candy and tea, Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun? ahh but who cares he's just a big ole softy teddy bear.

Godfather.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/02 ... ?hpt=hp_t2


Godfather.

JimmyV

goingtoverona wrote:

i don't understand how a person can stalk a child with a gun who committed no crime, shoot and kill him, then say nothing was done wrong. that's falling 30 yards short of making any sense to me. but different opinions lead to good debates, i would be the complete opposite of otter in saying that trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong and was straight up murdered. not really understanding what age or marriage has to with your view either. makes no sense. when you're 17 you're a tough goon, but when you hit late 20's and get married you're a big softy? where does that come from? hello??? trayvon was buying candy and tea, Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun? ahh but who cares he's just a big ole softy teddy bear.

Yep.

vant0037

otter wrote:

3. the witness, named Good i think, said he saw Trayvon's arms swinging down multiple times while Zimmerman was yelling.

No, Good stated he couldn't tell for certain who was on top or bottom.

otter wrote:

None of this really matters because Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong at all.

I believe that's currently up for debate before an empaneled jury.

otter wrote:

Trayvon was wrong for not going to his Dad. He was obviously not scared. Who is more likely to seek out a fight? A tough 17 year old or a married, 27 year old, wimp? I mean really...

Trayvon's not on trial for anything. He's dead. And that's a great question: who is more likely to seek out a fight? A guy with a gun and a documented recent history of calling police on "suspicious black males" or an unarmed kid walking home with candy from the convenience store? How do we know Trayvon Martin is "tough?" Because after the fact, we bystanders get to hear about his disciplinary issues etc. But on the night in question, George Zimmerman knew nothing about that. He had no idea who Trayvon Martin was. But still he followed him...

And how do we know George Zimmerman is a "wimp?" By his own words, he was taking MMA classes. Interesting then that a witness has described the fight as an "MMA-style, ground and pound..."

People forget that just because there are discrepancies about who the instigator was does not necessarily mean that State can't prove murder. In a self-defense case, the defendant has to first establish that his conduct meets the criteria for self-defense, and then the State has to rebut it. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder; the biggest element is already conceded (by virtue of Zimmerman's self-defense claim), namely, that someone is dead by George Zimmerman's hand. Zimmerman now says he was legally justified in that death. But what's the evidence that he was?

Long story short, any discrepancy about what happened in those 7-8 minutes before the gun went off could be just as detrimental to Zimmerman as it is to the State, because by virtue of his claim, he has to establish that he is not criminally culpable for boy that was killed by his gun. The evidence is clear that a kid is dead by George Zimmerman's gun. Is it clear that he acted in self-defense? Has he clearly established that he was not the aggressor? If all else stays the same, a clear jury instruction about self-defense and who bears the burden of showing what could very well result in a conviction.

otter wrote:

Well, it's a fact they didn't want to prosecute but hey the people insisted.

How is this a "fact?" Believe it or not, prosecutors take oaths to seek justice, not convictions, and that means that they cannot proceed with a charge they don't believe is warranted.

Last-12-Exit

The defense does not have to prove self defense. The state has to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin with evil intent and malice.

unsung

He is going to walk, as he should.

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

The defense does not have to prove self defense. The state has to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin with evil intent and malice.

False. Self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense," which means to establish it, the party asserting it must offer sufficient evidence showing that self-defense applies. If self-defense doesn't apply, then it's a slam dunk to show that Zimmerman is criminally liable for Martin's death. So while true that the State has the burden to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if Zimmerman cannot provide sufficient evidence to establish that he acted in self-defense, the State has nothing to overcome (with regard to that particular defense). Like I said, from there, it's easy to show that Martin's dead and Zimmerman shot him.

If you don't believe me, ask wikipedia.

vant0037

I should clarify, each state makes it's own standards of proof with regards to the requisite showing needed to prove a defense applies. I have no clue what Florida's is.

ajedigecko

...if tm were white - this would not even be news.

If zimmerman is innoncent .. Level 10 riots of anger.

If zimmerman is guilty...level 6 riots of joy.


...savages either way.