The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS FRIEND ON THE PHONE SAID HE DID.
She said he was by his house and then they talked for several more minutes. He was about 10 - 30 seconds from his home. He waited and confronted. He could have been home he had plenty of time to get in, he chose NOT TO.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

That's where the defense was weak. He took it WAY easy on her and they had to be super descriptive with the questions because she was unable to follow the narrative.

Exploiting the uneducated, or those with learning disabilities is never a good look, even for an attorney.

Another deflection from you to avoid answering to the facts. You know she was prepped by the prosecution to know when to lie and what not to say. That is why she wouldn't say anything she was aware directly incriminated Martin, but she slipped up and did just that in multiple instances where she wasn't aware the truth she was telling did hurt the prosecutions case.

edit on 28-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Team Zimmerman seems to be torn on whether she's too dumb to be allowed to breath, or a cunning, manipulative genius outsmarting highly paid lawyers.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Nothing at all to support what you said.
I think everyone in America is in a pretty sturdy agreement that she is very dumb. It doesn't take a genius to be trained to know when to lie. She didn't outsmart anyone, nor did anyone say that.

Besides she is a natural at lying.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS FRIEND ON THE PHONE SAID HE DID.
She said he was by his house and then they talked for several more minutes. He was about 10 - 30 seconds from his home. He waited and confronted. He could have been home he had plenty of time to get in, he chose NOT TO.

So, she said that he said he was "by his house," which could mean he was 100yds away, and that they talked for several minutes, right? So, where are you getting this bit about him running all the way to the bottom of the path from? Are you saying that didn't happen now, and that he stayed up near where his body was found? Because that could mean he was hiding for other reasons than to lie in wait for George to beat him up. Maybe he thought George had drove to the cuthrough further down from where his body was eventually found, and was waiting there to jump out on him?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Nothing at all to support what you said.

Your posts are your cites.

reply to post by Grimpachi


First off your links don't really back up what you are saying.

Second of all your name calling and all that about being bi-polar or my mother's account or whatever is really silly. Don't you think??

I have come at you straight. The whole time. I did yesterday as I did today. You made representations that there were certain forensic items in evidence., which there were not.

Once confronted then you said something like: Oh well I never said those were in evidence I heard that on the TV....right?? And how I was gonna see cuz the guy on the tv said....right???

Let us set that all aside for a moment of clarity, shall we??

You show me where ONE witness has testified that it was Trayvon that attacked Zpunk and not the other way around.

Don't weasel out now. Answer the question. I gave you the link yesterday to ALL of the testimony. So it should be easy for you. Post up.

JUST ONE WITNESS THAT SAYS TRAYVON WAS CHASING ZPUNK!! Just one. It is real simple. To make it easy on you, I will again provide the link to every second of testimony in this trial. Find it here

reply to post by GrantedBail

First off your links don't really back up what you are saying.

I said I asked you questions you wouldn’t answer it backs that up I had to ask twice in one instance.

Second of all your name calling and all that about being bi-polar or my mother's account or whatever is really silly. Don't you think??

No I think you are silly and it is an accurate description of what you are doing.

I have come at you straight. The whole time. I did yesterday as I did today. You made representations that there were certain forensic items in evidence., which there were not.

No I did not you were talking to someone else. Get your story strait or post the links to what you claim.

Once confronted then you said something like: Oh well I never said those were in evidence I heard that on the TV....right?? And how I was gonna see cuz the guy on the tv said....right???

Again no I did not that was not me. That is stupid I do not watch TV or have cable. 0 MSM here. You need to remember who you were talking to about that because it wasn't me.

Let us set that all aside for a moment of clarity, shall we??

No how about you either back up your statements or retract them I do not like being called a liar by someone who cannot even keep strait who they are talking to. Then we can go from there.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS FRIEND ON THE PHONE SAID HE DID.
She said he was by his house and then they talked for several more minutes. He was about 10 - 30 seconds from his home. He waited and confronted. He could have been home he had plenty of time to get in, he chose NOT TO.

Where in her testimony did she say he was 10-30 seconds away from his home?

Sorry but I have heard her testimony and at no time did she say this. She did say he was close to his home, but never did she say 10-30 seconds away. You made that up and you assumed this specific time frame.

How funny again you claim she is a lair. Lying comes natural to her. Yet you act like she is truthful when she says something that you feel validates your own conclusions. So again I ask you, is she is lair or is she truthful?

Or is it more of a case of she is lying when she speaks against Zimmerman and she is truthful if it can help him?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MrWendal
Had Zimmerman not been following Trayvon, then he never would have been confronted by Trayvon and he would still be alive. Zimmerman's actions on this night created the chain of events which lead to the death of Trayvon

Which is why the prosecution should have gone for manslaughter. They could have gotten that verdict. They over reached with the murder charge. If the prosecution doesn't win, it will be their own fault for over reaching.

You know I agree. I always said the murder charge was over reaching- however the instructions the Jury is given at the end will make all the difference. If they are permitted to convict on a lesser charge, they will.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Where did I lie??

Well maybe you are a bit confused you accused me of.

You have been sucking every blog, message board, facebook page, twitter feed, rumor board, et al...that you can for 16 months. You would bet your mother's life on statements the defense lawyers released prior to trial and every other venue that had an agenda.

You make stuff up...admit it? Tell me where any witness has confirmed what you scream from the mountain tops that Martin was the aggressor?? Hmmmm. It is not there as much as you would like to create these imaginary scenarios where that could have taken place. Whatever

As well as responded to your ridiculous premise that "there will be riots".

You show your racism when you preclude riots to be the outcome

Do you really think there are going to be riots??

I asked you to prove I said there would be riots. Again you never provided a link.

Instead of doing so you say.

I answered all your questions as well as showed you where you lied in your representation of evidence.

You make stuff up...admit it? Tell me where any witness has confirmed what you scream from the mountain tops that Martin was the aggressor??

Then rant some more never realizing I never did such things.

Really screaming from the mountain tops. Can you find those posts it seems there should be a lot.

So who is lying. remember links please or pages these all these are from page 50 on in case you forgot.

Should I post yesterday’s again where you accused me of saying things I never said.

Do you just have a problem remembering who is who?

All I have asked you for is proof that Trayvon was the aggressor.

Funny all I ask is you quite lying about things I have said or at the very least remember the things I did say.

reply to post by MrWendal


OK this is the law in Florida regarding Second Degree Murder and what must be established:

To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill.

State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.

Here is a little bit more:

Second-Degree – Lack of Intention
A murder in the second degree is the unlawful killing of a human being when an element of lack of intention is in play. For instance, if the death was not intentional or premeditated, it can be considered murder in the second degree, as opposed to murder in the first degree, which carries a heftier punishment. Typically, in the state of Florida, a second degree murder conviction results in a term of years, not to exceed life in prison, and not capital punishment. If the death was caused by an action that displays a blatant disregard for human life, even if it occurs without forethought and by mistake, it is considered second degree murder. Sometimes a homicide is considered second degree murder if it occurs while another serious felony is happening – such as drug trafficking, prison escape, home-invasion robbery, robbery, burglary, arson, aggravated child abuse, aggravated stalking, terrorism, unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device such as a bomb.

It is very clear, and I am sure that the jurors will be instructed by the judge as to what components are necessary to find guilt and at what level or juncture. There are also instruction for Manslaughter or third degree. Here is where the jury must act and we must all respect. I know that there are emotions raging on this issue. Irrespective of the outcome we will have to accept our system.

reply to post by MrWendal


She didn't say that. She said he was right beside his house. I said he died 10 to 30 seconds from his house (depending on if he ran there or walked there).

Of course she didn't say it. She didn't say much more than yes sir, no sir. She said he was right beside his house, where he hung out for several minutes before confronting Zimmerman. He died about a football field or less from his house. He was a football player with no injuries it's safe to presume he could have been there in about 10 seconds running or 30 seconds walking/jogging. But even if you disagree with THAT you cannot disagree that he could have been home within the few minutes he decided to stay "beside his house" rather than going inside.

reply to post by GrantedBail


That’s what I have been saying there is no way murder 2 is applicable here. The most the state could possibly hope for is Manslaughter which degree I am not sure. They may just go with justifiable manslaughter so it stays on the books.

From the previous page.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

Here is the link to the web site
www.richardhornsby.com...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I am not taking her word for it when she is backing Zimmerman's story. i am taking her word for it when she is finally refuting everything she previously said because she is on the stand and she knows the consequences. You can tell she doesn't have anyone leading her answers as was the case in all previous situations.

Nice try though. Common sense will always win over sarcastic statements.

No sarcasm here. I am not sure what testimony you have watched, but I did not see her refute her whole story. Not at all. Perhaps you can point out where I can find that in her testimony, I will be happy to rewatch again. I am watching all the testimony from this link Zimmerman Trial Testimony. I believe the friend starts at the end of day 12 or the start of day 13. So by all means, show me the testimony that does this.

Don't play the idiotic what if game. Following is not a crime.

Then what is stalking? I am also not playing a "what if" game, I am playing a game of facts. Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car and followed Trayvon there is no reason to believe Zimmerman would have been attacked by Trayvon. Trayvon ran from Martin- at first.

So whether Zimmerman was in hot pursuit

Which he had no authority to do. He is a citizen not a Police Officer.

or just keeping his eyes peeled (which was the reality as he lost track of the teen) he committed no crime.

How peeled were his eyes since he lost track of the teen?

Also sorry to say that your "keeping his eyes peeled" statement is false. Zimmerman's own words from the 911 call say he was following.

I love how you guys are shown you are wrong by the witness that lied and created this false narrative and ADMITS that she was talking to Trayvon as he waited for and confronted Zimmerman.

Again show me where she says this. I never heard it. This is your assumption, your view, your perception. This is not fact or what she actually said.

As for the what if game, Trayvon wouldnt be there if he didn't commit a crime and get suspended from school.

What does this example have to do with what happened on the night he died? Nothing. This is a silly argument to make. It makes no difference why he was there, the point is he was supposed to be there. He had a right to be there. He was committing no crime by being there and was not committing any crimes while there. Using your logic, why do we charge inmates for killing other inmates in prison? If the dead inmate had not committed a crime to begin with, he wouldnt be there. We charge them because killing is wrong. It makes no difference if you killed another bad person, what we look at is the circumstances surrounding the death and decide if one is justified in that specific set of circumstances.

He wouldn't have been killed if he walked into his house instead of waiting for zimmerman (while talking to Jeantel) and confront and assault him. Zimmerman's error was not a crime, all of Trayvon's seem to be.

edit on 27-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Really? What crime would Trayvon Martin be committing by turning around and asking a person following him, why he was doing so? What crime was he committing by walking to the store? What crime did he commit at the store? What crime did he commit while walking back home and blabbering on the phone with some girl?

I also love how you say Trayvon waited for and assault Zimmerman. Perhaps you can point out these facts from the testimony given so far. I have yet to hear anyone say those words. Perhaps you missed the thread title, "The Zimmerman Trial", it infers that the thread is about what happens at the trial. What info comes out at the trial. What is being said, on record in a court of law, as opposed to your opinions, your idea of what the law means, and your assumptions based on previous interviews and news pieces.

reply to post by MrWendal

Then what is stalking? I am also not playing a "what if" game, I am playing a game of facts. Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car and followed Trayvon there is no reason to believe Zimmerman would have been attacked by Trayvon. Trayvon ran from Martin- at first.

A lot of what you said hinges on the perceived stalking however here is the link to all the legal definitions i.e. statutes for stalking in Florida. I looked through it and couldn’t find one that fits maybe you will have better luck.

www.flsenate.gov...

reply to post by MrWendal


She refuted the Prosecutions whole story.
She did however admit to many lies which isn't good considering she was the biggest part of the prosecution.

Stalking is when you follow the same person on multiple occasions. Stalking is following, following is not always stalking. Following someone is NOT a crime. That has been stated by multiple experts over the past year.

LOL he wasn't in hot pursuit was my point. I'll do the same to you. You said how peeled could his eyes be if he lost Zimmerman. I will say how much could he be following him to lose him?

His eyes were peeled trying to see if he could SEE Martin again. He was no longer following but on his way back to his truck when Martin confronted and jumped him.

Just because you didn't hear her say it doesn't mean she didn't. Watch the last of her testimony with the Defense. She said he ran, the were disconnected, she called back 20 seconds later and he was by his house, they talked for several more minutes (where he didn't go inside the house ever) and then he saw and confronted Zimmerman.

That was her testimony. If you can't understand what that means then I can't help you.

The argument about him being a football player and how long it would take to get to his house is not a silly argument. It is important. He was hanging around outside his house for several minutes. If he was afraid of the guy following him he would have gone inside to safety. Instead he stayed outside for several minutes (several minutes every second of which he could have been going in his house) and then confronted Zimmerman when he came back in. It's very important information.