The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by FlyersFan


True, but I believe some of what she said. Namely the things she thought would help the state, but wasn't aware actually hurt them.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
Difference of opinion...

Well .. not really. It's not a matter of opinion to say that 'whoever threw the first punch' was the aggressor. Whoever did that is responsible for what happened. Nothing else matters .. not Zimmerman walking the neighborhood .. not Martin walking the neighborhood ... ONLY whoever threw the first punch. that's it.

The difference in opinion is that you think he is innocent and I think he is guilty...since we don't know who started the confrontation (doesn't have to be a punch...Zimmerman could have grabbed Trayvon's arm to keep him from leaving or any other number of possibilities)...then our difference of opinion is only on what we THINK.

No one is right or wrong...only Zimmerman knows exactly what happened and no one should trust a word he says since he has motive to lie.

We will see what the jury decides.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

that's fine. I just can't buy any of what she says. She got caught in too many lies and her bias was pretty clear to me. Also, she was playing games .. the first day being all street cred and aggressive and the the next day acting like she was on valium and the judge had to keep saying 'speak up'. The prosecution tried to pretend that english was her third language so she didnt' understand, but it was revealed that english (or eubonics) was indeed her first language .... so I just have to ignore her testimony .... sorry.

reply to post by firemonkey


Lol, it's fact, you deny facts? "I choose not to beieve these hard facts " - firemonkey

There IS nothing that shows anything but self defense.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by firemonkey

 

So what? Just because he has a motive to save his life doesn't mean it's not the truth. Look at it this way. If someone was getting beaten the way Zimmerman was and he killed his attacker and he was telling the truth (just hypothetically he was in reality telling the truth) do you think he should go to jail?

Also you were wrong, the witness on the phone with Trayvon said Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and another witness SAW Trayvon beating him. Ti am starting to get the troll vibe from you, and I thought the Mods got rid of them all : T

The witness on the phone never said that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman, he spoke first...that doesn't mean he was the one walking towards him. And since his question was "why are you following me"...it would be really odd to ask someone that if you are chasing them down.

And yes, someone claims to see someone with certain clothes on top...doesn't matter...that is during the fight...not the beginning.

This is the problem I have with concealed carry zealots, they think they are tough guys with a gun. They think they can get in a fight, or play police man and follow people around, and then if the fight turns on them they think they are justified in killing the person...even though they were the ones that started the entire situation.

Originally posted by firemonkey
The difference in opinion is that you think he is innocent and I think he is guilty

And yet 3 weeks ago I thought he was probably guilty of manslaughter.
The trial changed my mind.

...since we don't know who started the confrontation

and since we don't know ... we can't convict.

We will see what the jury decides.

Hopefully they will follow the law and decide based on facts, and not on mob-rule emotions.

reply to post by FlyersFan

And yet 3 weeks ago I thought he was probably guilty of manslaughter.
The trial changed my mind.

And that is your opinion.

The jurors will have their own opinion...theirs is the only ones that matter.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
Difference of opinion...

Well .. not really. It's not a matter of opinion to say that 'whoever threw the first punch' was the aggressor. Whoever did that is responsible for what happened. Nothing else matters .. not Zimmerman walking the neighborhood .. not Martin walking the neighborhood ... ONLY whoever threw the first punch. that's it.

The difference in opinion is that you think he is innocent and I think he is guilty...since we don't know who started the confrontation (doesn't have to be a punch...Zimmerman could have grabbed Trayvon's arm to keep him from leaving or any other number of possibilities)...then our difference of opinion is only on what we THINK.

No one is right or wrong...only Zimmerman knows exactly what happened and no one should trust a word he says since he has motive to lie.

We will see what the jury decides.

You don't seem to understand that until you can PROVE GZ grabbed his arm or started anything then it has to be not guilty. The prosecution has to prove it. Even if GZ did start it, it has to be proven in order to convict. Sheesh.

reply to post by firemonkey


ABSOLUTELY WRONG the witness on the phone said Trayvon approached and asked what GZ wanted. That means he confronted GZ first.

weather note .... the Sanford area is about to get hit with afternoon thunderstorms. The protestors, who have been growing in number outside the Sanford Court House, are going to get rained on very soon.

Tropical Strom Chantel burned out but there are lingering storms in the area. Heavy rain could be in the area when the verdict comes in. That could help keep any civil disturbances to smaller numbers ....

(however, the longer the jury is out, the more likely they'll go for manslaughter IMHO )

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by firemonkey

 

So what? Just because he has a motive to save his life doesn't mean it's not the truth. Look at it this way. If someone was getting beaten the way Zimmerman was and he killed his attacker and he was telling the truth (just hypothetically he was in reality telling the truth) do you think he should go to jail?

Also you were wrong, the witness on the phone with Trayvon said Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and another witness SAW Trayvon beating him. Ti am starting to get the troll vibe from you, and I thought the Mods got rid of them all : T

Firemonkey could you answer the first question I posed to you in the above post?

Originally posted by firemonkey
The jurors will have their own opinion...theirs is the only ones that matter.

Incorrect.

Where does this myth come from? Seriously?

The Law has the final word. If the jury comes to a conclusion that the prosecution or defence disagrees with, they are fully entitled to file an appeal.

That, in and of itself, removes any claim that the jury is the only ones that matter.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by firemonkey

 

They weren phone polls I believe and also a one vote per ip address net poll. You can find them one was CNN, and one was HLN (and trust me HLN wants him to be guilty so they would have preferred different results).

Links?

I'm on my phone dude. If you are incapable of looking yourself then maybe later, but why not just search instead of being a lazya**?

And Firemonkey ... repeating this in case you missed it ....

Provide evidence that he started the fight.
That's all you have to do. Prove he started the fight with Martin and that will mean he's guilty of
manslaughter. Go ahead and post the info ....

If you can prove it then I'll change my mind back
and say he's guilty of manslaughter.

If you can prove Zimmerman started the fight then great. Give me the facts on this
and I'll change my mind back to 'manslaughter'.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I already gave information on that. The Live Stream feed from yesterday had a poll.
It was 75% said Zimmerman 'not guilty'. That is somewhere in the pages from yesterday.

reply to post by firemonkey


The problem with your statement is this. With or without a gun a citizen can get into a fight, play policeman and follow someone around, even walk up to someone and call them whatever insult they think will cause someone to swing at them and STILL be in the right to kill that person in self defense as they have committed NO CRIME. They have broken no law. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that is what the law is.

The second problem is this. It is implicit in your statement that citizens are not to do anything about crime where they are. They are just to sit there and take it until and if the police decide they wish to step in. Why would the police not step in. First, by LAW, they are not required to. Second, the criminal might be a CI, Confidential Informant, who for all intent and purposes has been given immunity for any crimes they commit by the very police you are waiting to protect you. Good luck with that! I prefer to protect myself.

In the interest of disclosure I do not conceal carry, I do not carry anything that you would consider a weapon, as I have found I am far more dangerous without a weapon. The problem with a weapon is that in a dangerous situation unless you are properly trained you will reach for it rather then taking care of what needs to be taken care of. It leaves you open for the first few critical seconds. As I do not go looking for problems most of mine when they occur do so at arms reach. I am however well trained with firearms and usually practice once a month with a variety of firearms but I have had to curtail rifles as I have lost the sight in one eye.

Intense proest footage outside the courtroom.
Watch the video here

so if trayvon was acting so suspicious and looking at houses how come no one else called the cops on him?

thinking about being a juror, and evidence. and questions

so i made a visual of the neighborhood that i thought might help me if i was one jury .thought i would post it.
possible routes that could be taken by TM.

first by going by GZ on 911 call and reenactment, and jeantel testimony. picked up after they went by the club house. and GZ says he is running.




the red square where the fight started.
the black rectangle is GZ truck.
the green rectangle is where TM was staying.
blue dash line is the street to the back entrance.
yellow dash lines are four ways TM could have made it home.

in the 911 call GZ says he is coming to check me out, then a sort time later he's running, dispatcher says which way, GZ says towards the back entrance.

he also says the same thing in the reenactment but gives more details

jeantel stated that TM told her he was near the area of his daddy house.

lets just leave the reenactment out for now and go with the 911 call, many people say that he is lying in the reenactment, i don't think that people think he is in the 911 call, if i'm wrong please pardon me.. we'll also jeantel statement.

so if you look at the map you see that if TM went towards the back entrance, the house he was staying in is the second town house on the corner of the side walk. , or going around to the next street and going in the front.

you can see that there are cut throughs that he could have taken to get to the back or the front.
we know he was there by his daddy house, jeantel said he told her so. i count four.

so he had many different avenues to escape the "creepy a@@ cracker"

so if he was so scared of the "creepy a@@ cracker" why go back to the T? why didn't he go inside? he had lost GZ, jeantel said he told her so. if he was scared, why not call 911 from inside the house where GZ couldn't see him?

did he want to see if GZ was still parked there? did he feel played by GZ? did he see GZ walk by the T?

just why did he go back? i think we all know why, he wanted to whip him some "creepy a22 cracker" a@@!

I admit I have missed the obvious but I have not heard anyone else say anything about it. If Martin was afraid of this strange man following him then why did he call his gf who was out of state? Why didn't he call the police or at least his father who was close by?