Trayvon Martin

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

Blockhead · July 2013

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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?

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

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?

Blockhead · July 2013

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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?

It's right here in the jury instructions:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf

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).

Jason P · July 2013

My Magic 8-Ball just reported that is was "very doubtful" that Zimmerman would be convicted.

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

Blockhead · July 2013

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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?

It's right here in the jury instructions:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf

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:

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

BinauralJam · July 2013

Jason P wrote:

My Magic 8-Ball just reported that is was "very doubtful" that Zimmerman would be convicted.

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

I've been to Sanford Florida, Not a Big Loss.

Blockhead · July 2013

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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?

It's right here in the jury instructions:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf

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.

JonnyPistachio · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Blockhead · July 2013

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

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.

Last-12-Exit · July 2013

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.

Blockhead · July 2013

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio · July 2013

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.

JimmyV · July 2013

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Got it, thanks.

Last-12-Exit · July 2013

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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

Trayvon Martin

Comments

Categories