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: 155
25
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


That's right. Mom's rock. They would fight it out for you if it wouldn't ruin your reputation..


I can't tell you the times I wanted to take things into my own hands.

Mom's are just like that




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


yes i heard that too


I absolutely agree that with the ammount of autopsies he would have to distance himself to it as a rutine work, and i have no doubt that he is good at his job but it all ended a little awkward.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Libertygal
 


So the law that applies to the statute that derived out of the "Castle Doctrine" has a different application within the constraints of SYG?? Or are you obfuscating. I am not trying to be combative. I am trying to understand your point.
edit on 6-7-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

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


The point of the entire line of questioning was based on Georges' interview with Sean Hannity, when asked if he knew what SYG law was. He replied, "No," to which Sean Hannity again said, "So you have never heard of Stand your Ground?", and George again said, "Nope".

The first professor said they covered the law, and he taught it under Fla statute, as to how it would affect them as residents in Fla.

I believe George, having family and friends in LE knew it as the code, 776, or by The Castle Doctrine. SYG, as I said, was a nickname that slowly came into use over the following 2 years after Florida and other states passed the law, increasing recently in popularity as other states look more at self defense.

I simply think it is a matter of semantics. I believe if he had been asked about the code, or Castle Doctrine Law, he would have answered he knew what it was.

Florida expanded their Castle Doctrine Law in 2005, George took the class in 2010, if I am not mistaken. Even at the time, I knew it as The Castle Doctrine Law in Georgia. We were having a rash of home invasion roberies, so this was quite noteable to me. I was happy about The Castle Doctrine in Ga., but had no idea when it first came about that SYG was simply Extenxed Castle Doctrine. Just pointing out that the two terms are easily confuseable, in my opinion, if you don't know the origins of the nickname.

licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us...


Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005.

changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the
provisions of what is known as

declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the
right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if
that force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or
the commission of aforcible felony.


People are quick to lurch at anything George says with a LEO flavor, like, "Why does George say things like, 'I holstered my weapon'?", yet, they find in disbelievable that he and his friends discussed laws as they learned them. By code or Title.

The second professor did testify that they never covered SYG in the online class. He said it was in the textbook, but not in the workbook, and he had no way to verify if George even read the material.

I do not recall if they asked the question, since it was not discussed, if it was called The Castle Doctrine in the book, or SYG.

I also posted a message showing a letter from the second professor the the Sanford PD demanding Zimmerman be arrested.

Correction: I previously misquoted the code incorrectly as 766. Aplogies.

That was my only point. Semantics.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

OK, I can see your semantics argument. But don't you think you just may be reaching a bit?? George isn't an idiot. He knows damn well what SYG is. This is a man that comes from a family that has legal as well as law enforcement experience. His dream was to be in law enforcement. He knows what is up. He was milking the public for donations on Sean Hannity.

Can we please give the man the credit he is due. He took all the requisite courses to qualify for a permit to carry a firearm. You can't tell me he didn't know the laws that instruct the use of legal force.

Let's not play word games. He freakin knew.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Minus
 


And if you listen to the third video when they question him about the fingernail clippings and he keeps saying it isn't his job, hs suddwnly says, "Oh, I remember. Since I am the Assistant M.E., I am only required.." or something along that line. So, he wasn't the primary M.E.? I need to go back and listen to that, it was about policies coveeing fingernail clippings, and how the policies were not his decision or something.

Going to go back and re-hear that video.

However, he CAN remember. That just struck me as odd, like he was remembering a conversation.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


He wanted to be a prosecutor. This was per testimony from the professor that posted the letter demanding his arrest.

I think giving the credit people are due is based on the company they keep.

Class act vs street talk. Depends on who you think he spent time with. Educated people or people that used slang over proper English. I liked the first professor that testified. He used proper English, he spoke well, and was obviously well educated. He also obviously liked George. Seemed they got along well.

He coukd say "this" instead of "dis".

A class act.

So, I suppose it is a matter of opinion, and unless George testifies, which he may, we will never know.

Just offering an opinion based on the evidence presented. I think it was semantics.

You think he knew. That's cool, you have the right to your opinion.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Wrong. He said the job of scraping the fingernails was that of the technicians. He also stated that different states have different protocols. Some require cuttings and some don't. It was not that the autopsy wasn't done correctly; it was that the snipping of the fingernails is not in the protocol for the technicians in Florida.

Maybe what needs to be done is to have the technician called in order to describe the protocol for his position. Or we can just assume there was an issue because the defense brought it up on re=direct. Perhaps it was just a strategy to perplex the jury.

The defense can surely call the tech. but I doubt they will. They only purpose for that line of questioning was to create some doubt in the juries mind regarding the efficiency of the autopsy.

This is lawyering 101.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


He wanted to be a prosecutor??

Well, a prerequisite is having a license to practice law. I didn't get that from his educational pursuits.

You want to dissect someone's testimony based upon their use of the english language, have at it.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
My understanding is TM was given a routine autopsy and they do not check for DNA under the fingernails on a routine autopsy. In other words Zimmerman's DNA was not found on TM because it was not looked for. So it may or may not have been there. The DNA argument has no weight.



Again I don't understand why GZ''s DNA had to be under TM's nails. If TM never touched GZ's skin, but only grabbed GZ by the shoulders or the neck area via GZ's jacket when he was slamming GZ's head into the ground, GZ's DNA of course wouldn't show up. I could easily slam someone's head into the ground if I was straddling him and grabbing the outside below the neck area by the front of a jacket or shoulders with both hands if a jacket was zippered up.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Lol.. if you weren't being biased you would consider the fact that Zimmerman said he went for it or tried to. He never said that Martin 100 percent touched it.

Even if he did touch it it would most likely not transfer DNA and any partial finger prints could have been rubbed off by the multiple people that handled the gun in the rain (yeah when the gun was pulled out it was exposed to rain). That's IF he touched it, he might have just reached for it, or maybe Zimmerman just thought he was reaching for it. It really doesn't matter because the beating justified the shooting, going for the gun was just icing on the cake.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Minus

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
I've watched every minute of the trial, read all the evidence dumps available to the public, lurked on both sides of the fence regarding forums and blogs, and have used my own personal experiences walking on the wild side and having actually been in violent struggles, actual time spent in prison with violent 17 yr olds, and 51 years education in the school of life to filter and process the available infornation. I'm not some dummy who needs to be fed his opinions by the Bill O Reilly's, or the Jon Stewarts of the world.


Interesting - you sound alot like me, just older


Minus, I just replied to your post rather than searching for Ivan's original.

Ivan, we have both a lot of the same experiences and if what you say is true you have taken a look at all sides and watched all of the trial. That is very strange to me because I originally started out supporting Martin until I found out the truth and changed my mind. I am only 27 but have been in a lot of iffy situations. I can't see how you can look at this case with your 51 years and not see the obvious. You have made up absurd scenarios, misinterpretted evidence, and bought into the least likely concepts.

I mean the truth practically screams at you in this case, why doesn't it get through to the few of you in this thread that argue against it?

Ugie is right you seem very out of touch, and seem to grasp at straws. He kinda nailed how I feel about your perception, questions and explanations of the case.
edit on 6-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Lol.. if you weren't being biased you would consider the fact that Zimmerman said he went for it or tried to. He never said that Martin 100 percent touched it.

Even if he did touch it it would most likely not transfer DNA and any partial finger prints could have been rubbed off by the multiple people that handled the gun in the rain (yeah when the gun was pulled out it was exposed to rain). That's IF he touched it, he might have just reached for it, or maybe Zimmerman just thought he was reaching for it. It really doesn't matter because the beating justified the shooting, going for the gun was just icing on the cake.


Yep, under FLA self-defense, GZ was justified to shoot. Despite the Monday morning QBing of most people saying the GZ head wound pictures didn't look life threatening, it's subjective. When TM told GZ "You're going to die tonight" along with GZ getting his head pummeled in the ground, he felt his life was in danger at that time. It doesn't matter how other people second guess how he should've felt. Now it will only depend on that jury.
edit on 6-7-2013 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You claim someone else seems out of touch, but you somehow can not seem to understand why a guy following a person who turned 17 21 days prior would consider this a threat?

Let me ask you a question. You said you were 27 years old. If 10 years ago some random person began following you around in his car, would you consider that person a threat of some kind?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


OMG. You want to talk about bias. Jesus Christ himself could text you and tell you your "boy" is a liar and you would still be handing out excuses.

I admit I have a bias. But, I honestly have looked at the evidence that has been presented. I even coughed up a mea culpa. But, I gotta tell you, my opinion changed back after the professor's testimony. It all makes sense to me now. Why would you go on national television and proclaim that you had NO idea about the laws pertaining to SYG?? Why? Why not just say, "yeah, I took these classes to get my concealed carry and I learned about the laws surrounding lethal force." Why not do that....??

Well because he was milking it. He was looking for cash donations. It is clear that he was dishonest regarding the monies that had been donated to him. He directed his wife in code to launder those funds from jail. Who does that??

You got your boy's back regarding this deception?? Why not just come clean? When OMara took over, having realized the lie that was told, he went straight to the court. You know why?? Because it would mean his law license had he not been truthful.

So he lies about money he has, gets his wife to co-conspire, he lies about knowing anything about self-defense laws, switches up where he did what and when, and he is still your boy???

Seriously? And I have a bias??

Time to come clean.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnBreakable


Yep, under FLA self-defense, GZ was justified to shoot. Despite the Mondy morning QBing of most people saying the GZ head wound pictures didn't look life threatening, it's subjective. When TM told GZ "You're going to die tonight" along with GZ getting his head pummeled in the ground, he felt his life was in danger at that time. It doesn't matter how other people second guess how he should've felt. Now it will only depend on that jury.


The problem with this post is simple.

What evidence do you have that TM told GZ that "You're gonna die tonight"?

Here are the facts: GZ claims TM said this and not one single witness ever heard those words spoken.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by UnBreakable


Yep, under FLA self-defense, GZ was justified to shoot. Despite the Mondy morning QBing of most people saying the GZ head wound pictures didn't look life threatening, it's subjective. When TM told GZ "You're going to die tonight" along with GZ getting his head pummeled in the ground, he felt his life was in danger at that time. It doesn't matter how other people second guess how he should've felt. Now it will only depend on that jury.


The problem with this post is simple.

What evidence do you have that TM told GZ that "You're gonna die tonight"?

Here are the facts: GZ claims TM said this and not one single witness ever heard those words spoken.


Is their any evidence that TM didn't say this?
edit on 6-7-2013 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Where is the proof he lied? Did they bring in his attendence? Did they give Zimmerman a lie detector test to prove he didn't forget and lied? Could

That's not proof of anything. It's speculation. When did Zimmerman attend college? I didn't hear the years. It could be that the teacher teaches it and has taught it in the years since Zimmerman's so much that he thinks he taught it the year he taught Zimmerman. I know my college proffessors were incompetant when it came to keeping records of their curriculums. I had proffessors lose my papers (and actually the one that did now gives out a paper saying she isn't responsible for lost papers after I complained).



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


No. I even admitted earlier in this thread that I didn't believe Zimmerman was looking for an address. That doesn't change the fact that he was justified. He was justified, but I think any lies were because he was scared that he might still get in trouble despite being justified. I have admitted to such things in this very thread.

So you don't know anything about me. I am not biased. I am going on facts. Good that you admit your bias though it discredits all your arguments.

He said what he said on Hannity because he was facing a criminal trial and couldnt say anything that hurt his case. That is common sense, how could you misinterpret that?! You think he is going to go on t.v. while there is a witch hunt going on and say "I could have done something different" which would be used against him later and likely lead to him getting a charge.

There is no proof that he knew SYG. What if they went over it and he just didn't remember the name.
Please tell me how long it was since he had taken the class and what year he went. I can't find it.
edit on 6-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


No proof he didn't, but wouldn't matter. The damage to Zimmermans head was enough. Also when neighbor Mr. Good stopped and told Martin to stop beating Zimmerman Martin didn't. If he had been afraid that was his chance to get away safely as someone else was there. Instead he kept beating Zimmerman and was shot. Zimmerman asked that guy for help and didn't shoot until that guy abandoned him.

He was justified. And it was Zimmerman's voice on the call. He said to the first two people that showed up that he was screaming for help. He said that not having any idea that the screams were recorded on a 911 call.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You seriously look ridiculous. You make up these incredible scenarios that have no basis in any kind of reality short of a James Cameron thriller.

Whatever. You have staked out your position and you will defend it at all costs. Irrespective of common sense.

I took a look. Even though I came in with a bias. You came in with a bias and a pre-determined outcome that you are so invested in you are willing to sacrifice your online reputation. No one, with any objective thought process will ever take you seriously again.

I know I am wasting my time. But I love debating you.
:



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join