It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 109
25
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by XTexan

I don't think either one of them were out to kill anyone that night. It was a complicated situation, I'm sure. Honestly it comes down to who threw the first punch. I think Martin did sadly, simply because at 17... thats what I would have done, and I'm sure many others would have to.


At one point, very early on, I was prepared to concede that George might have shot Trayvon in panic after getting himself into a situation he could have easily avoided, but the more I've seen of George, the more I've developed this sense there is a dark heart inside him.

Everything I've read/seen/heard about Trayvon suggests he was about a one on the teenage criminality scale and hardly likely to wage a murderous attack on a stranger, especially in a situation where there was no high guarantee of the outcome.



edit on 3-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
how many hours and minutes untill trial starts today?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


I never said I was a blogger did I? I don't blog. I write (short stories/novels).

You're question is convoluted and it sounds like you had a misunderstood something, but are insisting on following through. To answer your ridiculous question though.. I had no idea that people were insinuating that Martin's parents had given up the possibility of a criminal trial in exchange for money. Why do you think I would know if some person insinuated that, or why they did?


It's not that hard to surmise. But as with everything about the case that might incriminate Zimmerman, or suggest that there is an agenda to incriminate Martin, you somehow develop a huge blind spot to it.


They wouldn't have any control over that, but I think they (along with their attorney) did coerce Rachel into giving false information so they could settle their civil case. They didn't tell Rachel that she would eventually have to go to the stand in the criminal case (where she would be torn apart). She said herself that she never thought it would go that far.


You have no evidence for this at all, do you?


I am sure there are some people that have taken Zimmerman's side from the start, and blindly so, but what is the relevance? There have been far more people that blindly defended Trayvon (all the way up to the president) without the facts being in. Trayvon's parents made themselves look like profiteers and Trayvon may have been an idiot as you stated, but he was also well on his way to being a seasoned thug as evidenced by perpetual drug abuse, regular assaults and fighting, having a gun he couldn't legally carry outside his home straw purchased for him, being caught with burglary tools and stolen items (which likely came from a house burglarized a few blocks from his school if you investigate for yourself). It is also very possible that he was in a disassociated state from drinking "watermelon leans" which he had 2 of the ingredients for in a bag while walking and had recently talked about using on facebook.


Why stop there? He was probably on his way to rob a bank.


I don't doubt that Martin was no angel. But the timbre of your language ("perpetual drug abuse", "regular assaults". Really?) is designed to make him look like some kind of crime kingpin, whereas the actual evidence suggests he was occasionally in trouble and none of those incidents resulted in convictions.

Yet when you discuss Zimmerman his (much more serious) crimes are suddenly off limits.

As to Martin's parents 'looking like profiteers', I'd encourage you to find one piece of actual evidence that they have made money from his death. A bit like the "they've waived their rights to a criminal trial" crowd, you were enthusiastically touting the falsity that they had sold t-shirts. Care to back that up? Or is it just another little lie designed to smear a dead kid?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
www.wftv.com...

THe court is in session. THe state is trying to get ZImmermans school work admitted so the jury can see it. THe defense is saying it's irrelevant to what happened that evening. The judge has already showed bias toward allowing the State to allow it.

My opinion - the prosecution is attempting damage control and deflection .... 'zimmerman could have gaged his statements to the police because he knew what they were looking for' .... could have could have ... but no facts that he did. This is deflection on the part of the prosecution .. IMHO

eta .. school work is on criminal justice
edit on 7/3/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

4th time I'm asking ... this is day 17 of the trial.
Are you/have you been watching the sworn testimony and facts coming in with the trial?
Are you watching it??



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
As to Martin's parents 'looking like profiteers', I'd encourage you to find one piece of actual evidence that they have made money from his death.

You posted in this thread. You know they have gotten money from this ...
Martin Parents Settle Wrongful Death Suit Against Home Owners Association for over One Million Dollars
As I said .. time will tell if they get money from book deals or made for TV movies.
I'm sure spike lee and oprah are waiting until the trial is over before approaching them with offers.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Did the state just call George a camel?

That's gotta be a mistrial, right there.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Did the state just call George a camel?
That's gotta be a mistrial, right there.

The state said 'the straw that broke the camels back'. I suppose you could say that the state called him a camel ... but common sense says it's just a phrase used. I can't see a mistrial on that ...



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Did the state just call George a camel?
That's gotta be a mistrial, right there.

The state said 'the straw that broke the camels back'. I suppose you could say that the state called him a camel ... but common sense says it's just a phrase used. I can't see a mistrial on that ...


I was joking.

back to the trial

If George wanting to be a cop is only a good thing, what is O Mara trying so hard to hide?
edit on 3-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This is really an important decision by the judge ... to let in information irrelevant to what happened that night. Zimmermans education is irrelevant. The prosecution is going to try to make assumptions on what Zimmerman was thinking and make speculations on Zimmermans police statements ... nothing that can be proven.

If the judge allows it .. it shows her bias to the prosecution.

If the judge disallows it ... the prosecution can hang it up. All they can hope for at this point is to try to smear Zimmermans supposed motive and police statements based on his education, not on any substantial facts.

The prosecution is going on and on ... trying to make their case to the judge (without jury present) that they should be allowed to bring in Zimmermans education. They haven't got anything left if this is shot down. The presentation hasn't convinced me to allow it. But the judge may allow it. If she does, then I think Martins social media self professed gansta postings should be admitted. IMHO



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If George wanting to be a cop is only a good thing, what is O Mara trying so hard to hide?

O'Mara is trying to make sure that the speculation on motive and speculation about Zimmerman tailoring his police statements don't get in. That's what the prosecution would do with the information on his education. It would all be speculation and smear. It wouldn't be facts. Just speculation to hang in the minds of the jury ... just like when the 'slim jim' being found where Martin was 'hiding' was brought up in front of the jury. It had nothing to do with the case, but it was brought up so it would be in the jurys minds.

Sounds like the judge is going to go along with allowing it ....
She's talking about redacting 'private' information ...



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


It is far from irrelevant that he might have a familiarity with how to field a police interview, and if you think the prosecution is banging on and on about, it, give O Mara his chance and he'd be at it a lot longer.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


How can it be a smear bringing up that he wanted to be a cop? I thought that was a fine, upstanding career choice?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Lesson from this request from the prosecution ..... if you go to school to get an education, the government will use that education against you in a court of law. If you play stupid, you can get away with things. If you are educated, the state will use negative speculation on your motive and actions based on that education. :shk:

Zimmermans education is irrelevant.
The state looks desperate.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
How can it be a smear bringing up that he wanted to be a cop? I thought that was a fine, upstanding career choice?

The smear is that they are saying that he knew the system and so hedged his responses to the cops. There is no evidence that he tailored his responses to the cops or with his stories. But that's what the state is going to try to say. That's the 'smear'.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It is far from irrelevant that he might have a familiarity with how to field a police interview,

You just said it .... MIGHT .... thats not evidence. That's smear. That's inuendo.
If they had solid evidence that he tailored his statements ... that would be evidence.
Just saying that someone might have is nothing more than putting ideas into the jury's
minds ... just like when the defense brought up the 'slim jim' burglary tool that was found
where Martin was hiding. It was irrelevant to the case but the defense wanted the jury
to have it in their minds.

By your thoughts ....
The defense could put Martins social media up in front of the jury and say that Martin
wanted to be a thug/gansta ... they could do that because Martin MIGHT have been
in 'gansta' mode and attacked Zimmerman. that wouldn't be fact, that would be smear.

See how that works? Same/same.
Zimmerman MIGHT ... Martin MIGHT .... those aren't facts. They are just speculation.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Judge rules .... objections overruled. Rules for the State. Says Zimmermans education is relevant. I totally disagee. If the judge doesn't allow Martins social media in the future, then she's clearly biased toward the State.

ETA ... 8 more prosecution witness' expected to be called before the defense starts it's case.
Defense expected to start on Monday.
edit on 7/3/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Trayvon Martin is NOT on trial. He is the victim of the charge of Murder 2. His past is irrelevant.

Zimmerman IS on trial. He is the defendant of the Murder 2 charge. His past (if it helps make the State's case) is relevant.

That's just how it works. When you're trying to figure out if someone committed a crime, his past may very well help to paint the prosecution's picture.

Again, this trial is not Martin vs. Zimmerman. It's the State vs Zimmerman. The dead guy's past doesn't enter into what happened that night. Zimmerman's does.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


That's why the state wants to bring in evidence that proves it isn't a "might have been familiar with police interview tactics" we are dealing with, but a certainty.


edit on 3-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Trayvon Martin is NOT on trial. He is the victim of the charge of Murder 2. His past is irrelevant.

Martins past and attitude goes to Zimmermans defense. So it's relevant.

Zimmerman IS on trial. He is the defendant of the Murder 2 charge.

And he should be allowed to defend himself. Therefore, Martins past and attitude are relevant because they go to Zimmermans defense.

His past (if it helps make the State's case) is relevant.

Martins past (if it helps the INNOCENT person on trial) is relevant.
Same/same.

Remember .. the defendant has a right to defend himself. Right?

If the prosecution is allowed speculation based on Zimmermans education in order to prosecute, then the DEFENDANT is allowed speculation based on Martins attitude and self proclaimed thuggery in order to defend himself.

Same/same. IMHO




top topics



 
25
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join