Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Dude.. I know what lesser charges are. I am telling you that the only lesser charges they will have heard arguments for are WAY lesser charges stuff you get probation for. The lesser charges you were discussing such as manslaughter and so forth they wont have heard any arguments for and have actually heard arguments against from both the prosecutor and defense. It is crazy that you are still trying to insult someone who has completely schooled you on this as you try to wriggle out.

OK. Aside from negligent homicide or manslaughter what lesser charges are you talking about? I would love to know what charges you are talking about. Don't just say lesser charges. Spit them out. Don't insult me after I have explained this a million times to you.

i dont think he will get probation, he already had two priors, they will take that into account. i'm thinking manslaughter 3-5 years. we should put some odds up.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

You asked me, I answered, and then I ask turned around and asked you and you ignore it. Why is that? Why bring up something irrelevant and try to accuse me of things and then be too afraid to answer the questions yourself. Weak.

BTW, pizzanazi, I asked for a reason why you are so full of hate.
I didn't call you weak. What have I done to belittle you?

You can be as mean as you want to, I just asked you why you are mean. If it is because of my race, I would wonder which race it would be.

I didn't call you weak. I was calling your arguement weak. There you go putting words in peoples mouths.

You tell me what I have done for you to belitte me? You can't ignore the fact that you are the one that stated this first....that started this whole discussion.....

What has caused you to be so filled with hate? Is it because of my race?

You didn't say I was being 'mean' you said I was filled with hate. You inquired if my 'said anger' had to do with your race, that is you implying that I may have a problem with your race.....which by the way I don't even know what race you are......you brought those things up, not me.....

Its a pathetic tactic to try and turn a situation around on someone when you started it......wait, that would be just like what Zimmerman did...so maybe it's not so surprising coming from you after all.

If you want to accuse me of being a racist, which is what your statement of 'is it because of my race' is implying....then accuse me of being a racist.....ill prove you wrong shortly after.....

It's pathetic for you to now act like a victim and say i am being 'mean' to you and 'belittling' you.....oh wait.....that would also be just like Zimmerman.......

So after all your actions aren't so surprising, they are actually expected.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


That's funny, I just told my brother I think that is what he will probably get as far as time. 3-5 years.

I think 10 to 15 would be better, but I think he will get the 3-5 range, IMO.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


It may not go to trial.
It wouldn't be involuntary manslaughter. Despite what Pizzanazi said it would be hard to juggle murder one with manslaughter as a lesser included. I know he thinks he knows it all.

Maybe, maybe reckless manslaughter, definitely not involuntary, but still I don't see how she can maintain her case for murder 2 and go for manslaughter.

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder." It's going to be hard to get someone for manslaughter if he admits to killing the person in self defense and has the wounds to show for it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You need to quit accusing me of things. You find me anywhere on this massive thread that I have said anything about him being charged with murder 1 or that being a lesser included charge. I have never said that.

Prove your claim, or remove that post....it is a flat out lie about me.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Maybe, maybe criminally negligent manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide (same thing) which is basically the same thing as reckless manslaughter, but still not likely to be proven in a murder 2 case where the defendant has claimed self defense and was on the phone with 9-11 prior and had damage that was recorded by police. I am sorry you just aren't getting this one. She would have to be proving he willfully intentionally murdered Trayvon for murder 2, but also that he somehow recklessly killed him in the name of self defense in case she wanted them to go for negligent manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide which are the same thing.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Why do people keep bringing up stuff Zimmerman's father says, and Tray's parents say? They are not witnesses, ignore them, they are irrelevant.

I will pose the question back at you as well. What is Tray, a poor unarmed kid, or a strong young man? Zimmerman haters seem to want to portray him as poor unarmed and defenseless. Then turn around and try to say it was a fight, and not an ambush. Somehow poor little Tray not only was winning a fight with a grown man, but somehow didn't get a mark on him, then got shot because he was winning a fight......

reply to post by pizzanazi75


What are you talking about? I never said murder 1. I don't even say it in the post you are replying to? So no I don't think I will be removing anything, just ask you to read a little closer.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I think he will get probation if anything. If he does time it will be in the 90 day range. However the case will probably be dropped.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So your admitting now that I am right? Thank you. All the times you accused me of not understanding and not reading. Just because you don't think she can prove murder 2 doesn't she can't.

You have accused me of all sorts of things and now after going in this circle you come back with 'Maybe, maybe criminally negligent manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide (same thing) which is basically the same thing as reckless manslaughter,'.....which is the exact same thing I have been saying this whole time.

Remember you saying this....

posted on 26-4-2012 @ 08:44 PM GogoVicMorrow
If she goes after murder 2 she can't say negligent homicide or manslaughter because charging him with those two things would be enough reasonable doubt to get him out of murder 2. It's you that has no idea what they are talking about.. ever.

It would seem you are eating your own words.

Now stop attacking me with false accusations and personal attacks such as saying I am 'trolling' the thread...I am having a discussion and when I see things that are wrong I point them out....just as I have now pointed out to you you have been completely wrong about the lesser included charges. Your twisting of your own words in subsequent post does not change anything.....people can see what you wrote, they know you were wrong. and even after that was pointed out to you by someone on your 'side' you still continued to attack me and accuse me of not understanding what was charged and what was included.......that's sad. Just admit you was wrong like everyone can see?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

I think he will get probation if anything. If he does time it will be in the 90 day range. However the case will probably be dropped.

That also means you think he is guilty of something. We don't send innocent people to jail for 90 days for nothing.

Thank you. It only took 250+ pages............

reply to post by TKDRL


zimmermans dad said george told him that are you calling him a liar? i would like to put george zimmermans dad on the witness stand. it would hold up in court.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

What are you talking about? I never said murder 1. I don't even say it in the post you are replying to? So no I don't think I will be removing anything, just ask you to read a little closer.

This is what I am talking about.....you said this....

It may not go to trial. It wouldn't be involuntary manslaughter. Despite what Pizzanazi said it would be hard to juggle murder one with manslaughter as a lesser included. I know he thinks he knows it all.

Would you like to try again?

You just keep proving you have no problem lying, even when its posted on the internet for all to go back and see. When I prove you lie, I can call you a liar. It has been established that you lie.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I didn't come up with that 'murder one' comment from no where....

See my previous post....i quoted you were you said exactly that....I see you are going to try and keep that lie about me going for 10 pages.....i guess ill just have to keep that remark loaded and ready to go to quote you everytime....

t may not go to trial. It wouldn't be involuntary manslaughter. Despite what Pizzanazi said it would be hard to juggle murder one with manslaughter as a lesser included. I know he thinks he knows it all.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie? Is it habitual with you or just specific to this thread?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


No, I am calling him a fool, while his intentions were good, trying to defend his kid from the rabid beating his son was taking from the media, he should have kept his mouth shut. I don't think hearsay is admissible in court.

Originally posted by Crakeur
Perhaps, Trayvon was standing his ground and Zimmerman, realizing he was now being overpowered by this kid, pulled out his gun and killed him


What does Florida say about standing your ground against someone who was standing their ground against you?




The issue of this case is that the guy committed a crime by killing the kid. Whether it was self defense, or not, is up to the jury not me (thank god).

That the issue some people are not understanding. Many states have adopted Florida's Stand your ground Law, however they have stripped out the portion dealing with the aggressor and escalation of force.

Florida's SYG law allows an aggressor to use deadly force if the person they were aggressive towards responds with such force that the aggressor feels their life is now in imminent danger / fear of death.

Personally I believe this is the reason we are seeing the legislature and former governor putting their 2 cents in. They know they crafted a bad bill and stupidly signed it into law.

A law that allows an aggressor to use deadly force while at the same time allowing the victim to defend himself is insane. The law should not protect both individuals and base the law off of what was perceived by both parties.

It should be restricted to defense only and they need to actually define what an aggressor is. A person who initially makes contact is not necessarily the aggressor so that portion needs to be further defined.

As for the rest there were witnesses to what occurred however the stories vary so it will need to be sorted out in court, if it ever makes it that far.

The choice of the PA to charge with 2nd murder coupled with the lead detective not being able to support, in court, the statement in the PC that Zimmerman was the aggressor towards Martin (legal term) should have ended the entire proceedings right then and there. The fact it was allowed to move forward (and from what I saw the next date was moved up, from the end of May to May 8th) might be the final match. The request to move the date up and the fact it was granted may very well have to do with the detectives answer.

This is nothing more than a political circus....

reply to post by TKDRL



Some hearsay is allowed in court. There is a pretty good chance that Zimmerman's dad and brother could both be called to testify because they are saying Zimmerman told them these things in regards to that night.....it depends on the judge and type of testimony......

I agree....Zimmerman should have told everyone he knows to STFU.......but he didn't, I think it's gonna bite him big in the a**.....

A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.

Hearsay

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

No, I am calling him a fool, while his intentions were good, trying to defend his kid from the rabid beating his son was taking from the media, he should have kept his mouth shut. I don't think hearsay is admissible in court.

oh yes it is when the hearsay was straight from the horses mouth! if oj told someone how and why he killed nicole and ron goldman you are darn tootin they would have had him on the stand.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Same with martin's parents, and that dumbass funeral guy lol. They wanted to help martin, but have damaged the case. Claiming that martin had no marks on him, seemed like the sly thing to do at the time, before evidence that zimmerman did in fact have physical evidence of an altercation on his head.... Now it makes it look like an ambush.

It's a big mess honestly, thanks to a whole lot of people sticking their noses where it didn't belong, and running their mouths to the media.