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

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Right, and what defense could zimmerman possibly have right? Sorry, I lied to pops, I was trying to make him feel better. That's if they could even get him to testify against his son at all.

reply to post by TKDRL


they would subpoena him and he would be forced to testify. he wouldnt be able to plead the fifth. O'mara better come up with something to somehow contradict this and it better be a good one.

If you take what the funeral director had to say treyvon
had no marks or bruises or signs of trauma, so that
would mean he never got hit and was not on top hitting
the guy on the bottom. If he was on top of zimmerman that means
treyvon was not trying to get away, at what point in a fist fight
can you not kill someone? If zimmerman did not have a gun
and killed treyvon with this bare hands would it make any difference?


treyvon was on top of zimmerman and did not try
to flee but confront zimmerman shows he was not scared
or dragged into anything. He could of just as easily ran
home or call 911 if he was worried. The fact he did not run
home, was on top of zimmerman, leads me to believe
zimmerman having a gun would not start a fist fight.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

There are lesser included charges he can be convicted of even if a jury decides it not 2nd degree.....

I guess you also missed that piece of information in all you vast knowledge of this case.

He was charged with 2nd degree because the prosecutor believes she has enough evidence to prove that, if a jury thinks she doesn't have enough to prove that BUT she does have enough to prove, say, manslaughter or negligent homicide they can convict on that. She most likely has enough for 2nd degree, if she doesn't she has an abundance to prove manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Lesser included charges are not your friend George Zimmerman.

The lesser included offense are usually assumed to be included in higher charges. The PA will need to request the judge, when he gives jury instructions at the end of the trial, that they can consider the option of a lesser included offense (manslaughter). Its something that can be challenged so if it ever makes it that far the back and forth will be interesting.

The PA has locked in her case the moment witnesses were sworn in and gave testimony in court, meaning jeopardy now has been attached. Any move to dismiss that is granted ends this entire endeavor.

double post

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

So because someone said his great-grandfather was peruvian-black, now he has gone from white, to hispanic, to black? Thats just ridiculous.

I guess you miss the point. You don't have to be a racist to racially profile someone. His neighbor, who was black, that was quoted was clearly saying he was racially profiling because of recent neighborhood events by alleged black males. Maybe he was a racist, maybe he wasn't. Thats not the point.

You made my point again with your cherry picking information on whether it supports or does not support your view.
So just because someone stated his great grandfather was Peruvian - Black... - You dismiss it.

Yet a few posts up you go on a tangent about how a person in the nighborhood -

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by Libertygal

 

The rest of her statement.....

"There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

So what she is saying is that George was racially profiling Trayvon. Do you agree with her?

If you do then there is the civil rights violation case.....not that her testimony means anything....but she seems to confirm what has been accused of him.

His friend Frank Taffe seems to agree with her as well....seems alot of racial profiling was going on in that neighborhood.

Taffe - 'If you plant corn, you get corn.'

Soledad O'Brien questions Frank Taaffe about Neighborhood Watch racial profiling

edit on 26-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)

You readily accept it because it supports your view that Zimmerman was racially profiling?

Which is it?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


If their case hinges on compelling a father to testify against his son, they are really up #s creek. The fact that the lead investigator said under oath that he couldn't prove one of the most vital aspects of the murder 2 wrap, doesn't bode too well for the prosecution.

reply to post by TKDRL


The difference is the funeral director is just reporting what he saw on the body.

Zimmerman's family and others have said what he told them happened.

A lack of injuries on Trayvon does not mean he wasn't the total victim. Injuries on Zimmerman does not clear him of wrongdoing.

Trayvons family's testimony would only be allowed in the manner of what police told them of what happened after the fact. They haven't been told anything by Zimmerman as to what happened that night, there for they can't and won't be asked to testify about it........zimmermans family on the other will be. they have direct testimony from the defendant, the martins dont. See the difference?

Zimmermans family's words can be shown, coupled with the evidence, to prove that what he told them is not true, such a being attacked at the 'T' yet Trayvon ended up 2 housed down from there. I hope he doesn't chicken out and take a plea....I want to see these people squirm on the stand.

i say manslaughter 3-5 years. if ya had to put money on it what would you say? be honest. i really dont think he is going to get out of this one.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

So because someone said his great-grandfather was peruvian-black, now he has gone from white, to hispanic, to black? Thats just ridiculous.

I guess you miss the point. You don't have to be a racist to racially profile someone. His neighbor, who was black, that was quoted was clearly saying he was racially profiling because of recent neighborhood events by alleged black males. Maybe he was a racist, maybe he wasn't. Thats not the point.

You made my point again with your cherry picking information on whether it supports or does not support your view.
So just because someone stated his great grandfather was Peruvian - Black... - You dismiss it.

Yet a few posts up you go on a tangent about how a person in the nighborhood -

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by Libertygal

 

The rest of her statement.....

"There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

So what she is saying is that George was racially profiling Trayvon. Do you agree with her?

If you do then there is the civil rights violation case.....not that her testimony means anything....but she seems to confirm what has been accused of him.

His friend Frank Taffe seems to agree with her as well....seems alot of racial profiling was going on in that neighborhood.

Taffe - 'If you plant corn, you get corn.'

Soledad O'Brien questions Frank Taaffe about Neighborhood Watch racial profiling

edit on 26-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)

You readily accept it because it supports your view that Zimmerman was racially profiling?

Which is it?

I didn't dismiss anything, My great-grandfather was indian. I don't claim to be indian.

and like it or not black people can racially profile other black people.
........................white people can racially profile other white people
........................asians can racially profile other asians......

an example, maybe lots on here can understand, because im sure someone will come in and say how can a white person racially profile another white person.....

If I call someone white trash.....I have racially profiled them....i am sure most people on here at one point or another have said something about white trash, poor white trash.....im white, i racially profiled.

And I didn't cherry pick any comment, I was having a conversation with another poster ....about something they post.....

Typical, another day, more untruths by you, you are consistent.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


You did not answer the question... A person commented on Zimmerman's background, pointing out he comes from Peruvian - Black.

You dismissed that info as irrelevant did you not?

So because someone said his great-grandfather was peruvian-black, now he has gone from white, to hispanic, to black? Thats just ridiculous.

Yet you then post the argument / insinuation that because a person unrelated to Zimmerman stated he was racially profiling, then it must be true that Zimmerman is a racist / engaged in racial profiling against Martin?

You did not make the same argument against that assertion that you did when the person suggested Zimmerman's background included Peruvian-Black. I posted both of your quotes so im not sure where you re getting untruths from. How about you explain that comment.

You cherry picked...

Why?

reply to post by pizzanazi75


The funeral home and the family's view of the body will be easily dismissed by the testimony and inclusion of the medical reports from the ME as well as autopsy results.

I will be surprised if the PA even tries to go down that road using the argument of "looks like" against a ME examination / autopsy results.

What was the time frame the ME had the body in his custody and when was the body officially released from the ME's custody and transfered back to the family and funeral home?

That info will play a huge part into the effect of any questions along those lines.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Dude.. you are crazy. That was a mistake, I didn't even notice that I made it and it was wasn't even putting words in your mouth or accusing you it was just explaining a scenario where i slipped up and said murder 1 rather than murder 2. You're really crazy man.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Do you agree though that if she argued for anything less than murder 2 it casts reasonable doubt on the murder 2 charge itself? The jury can decide it, but they would have to decide of their own accord as the prosecutor would have to be arguing that it was nothing less than murder in the second degree. Correct?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Dude.. you are crazy. That was a mistake, I didn't even notice that I made it and it was wasn't even putting words in your mouth or accusing you it was just explaining a scenario where i slipped up and said murder 1 rather than murder 2. You're really crazy man.

that is always the excuse when you guys get called out and then proven to be lying about your claims.....................................owe it was a mistake.......a slip up......no it was an accusation you made against me that wasnt true.....

why does your supposed mistake make me crazy? the crazy one is the one who won't admit they are wrong when even people who are on your 'side' tell you your wrong, that is crazy.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

You did not answer the question... A person commented on Zimmerman's background, pointing out he comes from Peruvian - Black.

You dismissed that info as irrelevant did you not?

So because someone said his great-grandfather was peruvian-black, now he has gone from white, to hispanic, to black? Thats just ridiculous.

Yet you then post the argument / insinuation that because a person unrelated to Zimmerman stated he was racially profiling, then it must be true that Zimmerman is a racist / engaged in racial profiling against Martin?

You did not make the same argument against that assertion that you did when the person suggested Zimmerman's background included Peruvian-Black. I posted both of your quotes so im not sure where you re getting untruths from. How about you explain that comment.

You cherry picked...

Why?

edit on 27-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

No I dismissed the fact that because someone said his great grand-father was black, that that in any way pointed toward the fact that he was black or that he couldn't still engage in racial profiling....it seems clear based on this womans statement and neighbor frank taffee statements and his former lawyers statements, and his prior 911 calls, all of which happen to be about black males, that racial profiling was going on in that neighborhood.......blacks were doing it to blacks it seems, as well, not just the whites or the mixed men of peruvian-black-white/jewish background.....racially profile, ironically is colorblind on who is capable of doing it....the womans comment proves it.......

Don't put words in my mouth....ill just have to spit them back out at you.....

All I can say is I totally agree....it would serve him right to be thrown back in jail....where he belongs.

He has lied to the courts now.

Martin attorney: Zimmerman should go back to jail

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Dude.. you are crazy. That was a mistake, I didn't even notice that I made it and it was wasn't even putting words in your mouth or accusing you it was just explaining a scenario where i slipped up and said murder 1 rather than murder 2. You're really crazy man.

Your wasting your breath.. Only he can make mistakes.. If anyone else does it he ignores it and goes on a crusade and continues to call people liars, specifically referring back to whree your mistake was made. He did the same to me in another thread as well as this one, specifically ignoring my post that identified my mistake and the links that corrected it.

Let it go....

This case is done....It is no longer a main concern on the MSM...They moved on already apparently because they found another story to use...So who cares already...

If anything they will use a white kid this time...Which they have, but even that will go away...Forget about it, the MSM will use anything to cause ruckus which they did for a bit.....

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Do you agree though that if she argued for anything less than murder 2 it casts reasonable doubt on the murder 2 charge itself? The jury can decide it, but they would have to decide of their own accord as the prosecutor would have to be arguing that it was nothing less than murder in the second degree. Correct?

I completely garee with that pobservation. A PA charges high in hopes of a plea bargain. As people have pointed out though Zimmerman plead not guilty, so the tactic of trying to force a plea did not work. Secondly, others have noted that had Zimmerman took the plea the Pa would get backlash because people dont want to see it plead out. They think Zimmerman is guilty and want to see him sent ti prison - for life.

A catch 22 for the prosecutor, who is now damned if she does damned if she don't.

By bending into pressure surrounding the case, and absent a smoking gun we dont know about, she painted herself into the corner the moment she gave her political press conference announcing the charges and arrest of Zimmerman.

The PC does not support a murder 2 charge.
The detective who was part of the PC knowingly made a flase declaration in that PC.

That back and forth in court should have been the end of the trial - period - and it still may be.

Because witnesses were sworn in at the hearing jeopardy is now attached. The PA can no longer withdraw charges to regroup. If the defense, and I have a feeling this is coming, moves for dismissal at the next hearing (based on lack of evidence to support the murder 2 charge via the detectives statements under oath) and the judge grants it - there is no refiling of charges.

As an example (in general and not state specific) on how a charge with a lesser included offense attached can be a double edged sword.

If a person gets drunk (over 0.08% BAC) and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and drives home, causing an accident and killing a person, there are multiple avenues of prosecution.

DWI is the one that comes to the forefront of peoples minds.
Involuntary manslaughter is the other.

The suspect cannot be charged with both. If he is charged with a DWI and he pleads to that before the prosecuters catch it, they cannot charge him with involuntary manslaughter (its extremely rare but it occurs).

If they charge him with involuntary manslaughter, based on the circumstances DWI is a lesser included offense. If the case is dismissed there is no going back and refiling the lesser charge - its over with.

The only possible way to to refile on a charge where it does not run contrary to the doble jeopardy issue is if new and compelling evidence arises that was not known to the prosecution / defense previously (an eye witness etc). At which point its up to a judge on whether the state has met their burden to refile.

At the next hearing lets watch for the following legal language.

option 1 - Charges are dismissed with prejudice
option 2 - Charges are dismissed without prejudice.
option 3 - Defense motion to dismiss is denied and they move forward.

My wager, again based on the info we as the public have, is option 1.