The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by ButterCookie


That, and the small fact he can't remember from 2 years ago. Hasn't it been just over one.year?

The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman took place on the
night of February 26, 2012

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Seems his memory, and that of the media is worse than thought.

Kind of surprised no one called that out, unless I missed it.

reply to post by Libertygal

Originally posted by Libertygal
[That, and the small fact he can't remember from 2 years ago. Hasn't it been just over one.year?
.....
Seems his memory, and that of the media is worse than thought.

Let's see how good your memory is. What did you eat just one year ago? On July 6, 2012? Do you remember? Is your memory that bad?

Keep in mind the autopsy was performed one day after the shooting, before it was news. In fact, Trayvon Martin was a "John Doe" at the time. And the ME routinely performed autopsies as part of his job. Why SHOULD he remember it any more than you remember what you ate on a particular day one year ago or 6 months ago or even 1 month ago?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Exactly. People are too emotional about this. Or at least too emotional to realize that what actually happened isn't going to convict or acquit Zimmerman. It's all about what can be proven in court and what the jury thinks. And, as far as I can see, Murder 2 has not been proven.

I'm one of those crazy people that was satisfied when OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Not because I think he didn't do it, but because they didn't prove it in court. The courtroom is a whole different reality than our normal lives.

Just to get it on 'paper', I think Zimmerman had his gun drawn pretty much as soon as he got out of the car. I think he carried it in his hand the entire time, and later said it was a flashlight that didn't work, just in case someone saw him carrying something. Simply because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Why would this wanna-be cop walk into a dark, rainy area after a "suspect" that he doesn't know, doesn't trust and who may be armed himself? There is NO WAY he casually walked through that area, turned around, and walked back past the "T" like he was out for a Sunday stroll - without carefully being aware of his surroundings - giving Martin a chance to "jump out" and confront him. That is a huge lie.

I think he found Martin, a scuffle ensued and Zimmerman fell down, Martin jumped on top and Z shot the kid in cold blood the first chance he got. Later he acted surprised to find out Martin was dead, but in reality, he knew he hit the heart, because that's exactly where he aimed. Zimmerman didn't go through all that training, try to be a cop, ask to ride with the cops, take all those classes, have a CCP, and then walk into a dark area with his firearm holstered. There is no way I'll ever believe that.

But can the prosecution prove that story? It doesn't appear so. So, now it comes to what can be proven in court or what can cause the jury to have reasonable doubt about his self-defense claim. That's the State's only chance. And I hope like hell they can do it.

If George Zimmerman already had his gun drawn, why would have Trayvon attacked him? Why wouldn't ZImmerman just say something like, "Freeze, put your hands in the air!!!!" If he was just some wannabe cop?

So Zimmerman steadied the gun, aimed perfectly and shot straight through the heart even though Trayvon was straddling him? Really? I'd be more willing to believe that Zimmerman, as was being straddled, shot randomly and through sheer luck shot straight through the heart, than I'd be willing to believe that he's such a gun virtuoso that he can make such a perfect shot during a scuffle.

Wasn't there a flashlight found at the scene?

George ZImmerman's story is much more believable than your scenario.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


No not really. I have left out "alleged " talking about this very case and I know he's innocent. The Trayvon team is really popularizing the term freudian slip on ATS. Freudian slip is about as solid as any evidence the prosecutio has though.

You know what's funny. That you think that it was Trayvon screaming for help even though the first thing Zimmerman said to the people that arrived was that he was screaming for help and at the time he had no way of kowing that was recorded on 911 calls. Also it sounds more like zimmerman than martin, and zimmerman's mother and uncle recognized it immediately when trayvons father did not (the martins oly recognized it when it could be a pay day.

Also Martin continued to beat Zimmerman even when the witness told him to stop. If he was doing it until he elt safe that would've been a good stopping point. He continued, he got justifiably shot.

reply to post by AlexG141989

- Two flashlights were found at the scene; one small one attached to a Honda key chain, and a second flashlight whose owner was not identified in a police report.

Source

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me and I'm not interested in arguing my position. I just wanted to get it out there.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So you think Zimmerman could tell how many witnesses were around in near pitch dark, while being beaten, and after hearing a witness speak to them?

Scenario failed.

Martin was on top beating Zimmerman when neighbor Goode stepped out and told Martin to stop (which Martin didn't do). That was juust a moment before the shot.

So now Zimmerman has night vision and omnipresence and knew there was no one filming from a window. Can yu admit that's a dumb idea? You realize how far you are stretching to make zimmerman the bad guy?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

When have I EVER said anything other than that. I have NEVER said I thought he was trying to find an address. I said earlier in this thread that I believe he said that because, despite the shooting being completely justified, he was terrified of having shot someone and afraid of being in trouble. I think he was definitely looking and trying to see if he could see Trayvon, but I believe he had given up and was on his way back to his truck when Martin jumped him.

You're entire argument is based on what you think a person you have never met is like and assumptions you have made about his motives for every action. My argument is based entirey on evidence.

edit on 6-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I noticed you skipped replying to my above post. It's sad no one ever admits when they are wrong anymore. I admit it, I am right about this case but I admit I'm wrong when someone proves me to be.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

But can the prosecution prove that story? It doesn't appear so. So, now it comes to what can be proven in court or what can cause the jury to have reasonable doubt about his self-defense claim. That's the State's only chance. And I hope like hell they can do it.

You see this is where every keyboard and armchair legal expert in this whole discussion and or event, have it all direly wrong... This is USA where one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It is the burden of the state to remov reasonable doubt from the states case not add doubt to the defense's case. Now do not take that the wrong way, if there is concrete evidence which shows the defense side as a fabrication then yes it is part of the states job to inform the jury. Yet what most people do not understand is that 90% of the states evidence is hearsay or conjecture and adds nothing concrete to the case or is backing up the claims of the defense. The burden of proof is on the state not the defense, there has been no proof that is worthy of any conviction of any type. That is fact rather than the emotional rubish people keep pushing around.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


You are innocent until it's proven you are a lying pos in a court of law. Then it's up to a jury to decide.

As Prosecutor Mantel said, there are two people involved in this case - one of them is dead, and the other is a liar.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You want some kind of credit for conceding that George wasn't really looking for an address? Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that for me to acknowledge your critical thinking abilities.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


why dont you show us what evidence you have, that makes GZ guilty?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

You are innocent until it's proven you are a lying pos in a court of law. Then it's up to a jury to decide.

As Prosecutor Mantel said, there are two people involved in this case - one of them is dead, and the other is a liar.

edit on 6-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

In order for that to work you have to discredit EVERY single fact that the defense puts forth as evidence to the defense of his actions. if any part of what is put forth as evidence towards the defense holds any ground then that is the reasonable doubt which the jury is not allowed to convict. Anyone can call him a liar all that they want but in the end it is all hearsay and only an opinion not a fact. Most facts and witnesses have contributed not to solidify the states case but rather to back what the defense has been saying all along. Convictions can only be handed down out of fact not fictional ideas of what might have happened. Law is not about emotion, it is about cold hard facts.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
In order for that to work you have to discredit EVERY single fact that the defense puts forth as evidence to the defense of his actions. if any part of what is put forth as evidence towards the defense holds any ground then that is the reasonable doubt which the jury is not allowed to convict. Anyone can call him a liar all that they want but in the end it is all hearsay and only an opinion not a fact. Most facts and witnesses have contributed not to solidify the states case but rather to back what the defense has been saying all along. Convictions can only be handed down out of fact not fictional ideas of what might have happened. Law is not about emotion, it is about cold hard facts.

Exactly, just take the Casey Anthony case

reply to post by Minus

What, and give Zimmerman defenders even an inkling of the schooling they are going to get from the prosecution? Not likely. There are plenty of clues tho', if you've been paying atttention.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

In order for that to work you have to discredit EVERY single fact that the defense puts forth as evidence to the defense of his actions.

The defence has nothing but George's word and the flimsiest of witness corroboration of parts of his story. The prosecution will have no trouble discrediting every bit of it.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I have yet to see any part of the defense's case discredited. I have however seen the prosecutiona all but give the case to the defense.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


That sounds like just your reading of the trial. Seemingly level-headed people here and elsewhere on the net have an entirely different view. The prosecution is over the acquittal hurdle and waiting to pounce on anything the defence brings forward.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Originally posted by Libertygal
[That, and the small fact he can't remember from 2 years ago. Hasn't it been just over one.year?
.....
Seems his memory, and that of the media is worse than thought.

Let's see how good your memory is.

What did you eat just one year ago? On July 6, 2012? Do you remember? Is your memory that bad?

Keep in mind the autopsy was performed one day after the shooting, before it was news. In fact, Trayvon Martin was a "John Doe" at the time. And the ME routinely performed autopsies as part of his job. Why SHOULD he remember it any more than you remember what you ate on a particular day one year ago or 6 months ago or even 1 month ago?

You are absolutely right in being fair about his memory of a John Doe 'before it was news'....

so why did they call him as a witness???

reply to post by ButterCookie

Originally posted by ButterCookie
You are absolutely right in being fair about his memory of a John Doe 'before it was news'....

so why did they call him as a witness???

He is an EXPERT witness, not an eye-witness or other witness to the crime. He is called there to relate his expertise and specialized opinion.

Q 1.1What is an expert witness?

An expert witness is one allowed to provide opinion testimony at trial based upon his or her specialized knowledge, training or experience, if the opinion is reliable, relevant to the issues in the case, and will help the fact finder to reach a decision. An expert witness need not have percipient knowledge of the facts of the case.

Source

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

But can the prosecution prove that story? It doesn't appear so. So, now it comes to what can be proven in court or what can cause the jury to have reasonable doubt about his self-defense claim. That's the State's only chance. And I hope like hell they can do it.

You see this is where every keyboard and armchair legal expert in this whole discussion and or event, have it all direly wrong... This is USA where one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It is the burden of the state to remov reasonable doubt from the states case not add doubt to the defense's case. Now do not take that the wrong way, if there is concrete evidence which shows the defense side as a fabrication then yes it is part of the states job to inform the jury. Yet what most people do not understand is that 90% of the states evidence is hearsay or conjecture and adds nothing concrete to the case or is backing up the claims of the defense. The burden of proof is on the state not the defense, there has been no proof that is worthy of any conviction of any type. That is fact rather than the emotional rubish people keep pushing around.

Absolutely, which is why I see the judge as biased, even as this was presented to her yesterday.