Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

No one actually saw them fighting, all we have is his word, which is dubious.

You're talking out of your ass. John Good was a state witness and the only eyewitness to the fight before the gunshot. He corroborated GZ's story and said when he went inside to call 911 that is when the gunshot rang out. There was an eyewitness to the fight and that witness was called by the state, not the defense.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

There was actually more than one witness that saw them fighting.

One says he was on top and the other says he was on the bottom.

Again, not accurate. There was only one eyewitness to the fight BEFORE the fatal gunshot. There were two other witnesses who came outside AFTER hearing the gunshot.

There seems to be a recurring theme:

If a person looks at another person, asks a question or approaches within some yet defined distance then the second person has the right to fight or attack that person.

Maybe that belief is the source of the problem...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I think I have read so many articles that it is all running together.

There was one girl who said that she saw Zimmerman on top. She described what he was wearing and defined color, which I though was odd as it was night time.

I guess that TPTB, and the civil rights leaders, want to end the: 'Stand your ground' law, take away our guns just so that it's easier to exterminate us. That's the only thing that I can figure. I reckon when any of us are attacked by a violent thug, we are just supposed to cower down and give them our wallet, shoes, credit card and pin #, watch, and jewelry, --and even our lives. Just let'em have it - just like a coward liberal would. That's what all of'em want. They don't like to see a good man/woman fight back and win! They've turned this into a full assault on gun owners.

Now, the civil rights leaders, probably organized by Obama and the DOJ, have orchestrated a 100 cities, 100 days protests. How long can they keep pushing before the other side pushes back? I think most people are already sick of it and getting irritated about it. All it will take is the right incident to set off an uprising/civil war. You can only attack innocent white people for so long. I cannot understand how anyone can't accept proven facts and develop fake outrage on B.S. assumptions. That's an agenda.

There are crucial points that supporters of GZ don’t deal with:

No DNA supporting his story, absolutely none.

GZ exaggerations on his wounds (head being slammed on concrete 20 times) that amount to lies even the defense and that juror on CNN admit this.

Also in any trial the jury suppose to look at the evidence closely, and in-depth, and analyze it beyond the superficial where they can have the excuse that for example, GZ was wounded, therefore he is telling the truth.

But there is not an iota of DNA of TM on him.
There is no evidence but the liar GZ that it happened like he said it did.
All we know GZ may have fell on the ground and broke his own nose, and or gotten those 2 small wounds on his bald head.

Bottom line this jury AND THE PEOPLE HERE supporting GZ are viewing this evidence superficially

And when I hear: the jury spoke so forget about it.

I wasn’t hearing that kind of talk after the OJAY trial!

Also people here keep saying the falsehood
“no one testified GZ was on top”
That is false. And I keep seeing here “this guy didn’t watch the trial” and then the same person will say the falsehood” no one claimed GZ was on top”

So who didn’t watch the trial?

I look up everything I post

It is people here who are sloppy and inaccurate.

Go and listen, like I have, to what was in the trial. The testimony of GZ on those recorded sessions with the cops. Go to HLN and see the reenactments

Either do that or cease and desiste with your

“he didn’t watch the trail”

reply to post by Willtell

No DNA supporting his story, absolutely none.

I have a feeling that if there was DNA, and it supported Zimmerman, you would complain that there were no security camera photos.

The trial is done on available evidence. You can wish for more, but there isn't any. The existing evidence supports Zimmerman.... even the prosecution witnesses support Zimmerman's story.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Oh really, then why do I keep hearing over and over and over

NO ONE SAW ZIMMERMAN ON TOP

reply to post by butcherguy


One suppose to analyze the integrity of the evidence.
For example, actaullly if it wasnt for the judge they would have put in evidence by experts that the voice was TM screaming. The other expert was going to testify that the voice wasnt GZ's.

Now if they had let that evidence in then would you have automatically voted GZ guilty?

Just because somthing is in evidence doesnt make it true.

The jury and many here have decided which evidence they think is true, as there was conflicting evidence on both sides. I have decided the opposite becasue of the evidence of the other view.

reply to post by Willtell


WHO ARE YOU HEARING THAT FROM AND MAYBE I CAN ANSWER OTHERWISE IT WAS IN THE TRIAL.

reply to post by Willtell

But there is not an iota of DNA of TM on him.

Yes there was. You should have watched the testimony or read the trial thread - it might also be in this one.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I think I have read so many articles that it is all running together.

There was one girl who said that she saw Zimmerman on top. She described what he was wearing and defined color, which I though was odd as it was night time.

That would be Selma. She was not a witness to the fight, she came outside after the gunshot.

Originally posted by Willtell
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

Oh really, then why do I keep hearing over and over and over

NO ONE SAW ZIMMERMAN ON TOP

Because what matters as far as to self-defense is what transpired BEFORE the fatal gunshot.

reply to post by Willtell

Oh really, then why do I keep hearing over and over and over NO ONE SAW ZIMMERMAN ON TOP

Probably because there were credibility issues with the witness.

EDIT:

I stand corrected.

I will admit when I am wrong, .. cause thats the kind of guy I am.

reply to post by Willtell


They did analyze and scrutinize the evidence. That is what left them with reasonable doubt.

If there is ANY Reasonable Doubt what so ever you MUST Acquit.

AND

To compare this to the OJ trial is pathetic. It is NOT even close. In that case there was Overwhelming evidence that OJ did it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Willtell
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

Oh really, then why do I keep hearing over and over and over

NO ONE SAW ZIMMERMAN ON TOP

Because what matters as far as to self-defense is what transpired BEFORE the fatal gunshot.

And ofcourse, with a man laying on the ground and a man standing with the gun in his hand automatically looks guilty. This is why we have trials, versus the 1880's style lynch mobs who wouldn't care if the man was guilty or not as long as they got to have a picnic watching someone hang.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Because what matters as far as to self-defense is what transpired BEFORE the fatal gunshot.

And ofcourse, with a man laying on the ground and a man standing with the gun in his hand automatically looks guilty. This is why we have trials, versus the 1880's style lynch mobs who wouldn't care if the man was guilty or not as long as they got to have a picnic watching someone hang.

There have been trials long before that and some just as attention garnering as this. Take the so-called Boston Massacre and the British soldiers that were tried. Luckily, rule of law stood on their side from the most unlikely character; John Adams. Staunchly standing for the rule of law ensures it is applied in the most equal manner possible.

I do understand your point though.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So says you, but you (we) only know half the story.

Sorry about confusing the issue as far as it not being a police officer.

Originally posted by RobinB022
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So says you, but you (we) only know half the story.

Sorry about confusing the issue as far as it not being a police officer.

Not really. We have GZ's side, the eyewitness to the fight corroborated his story, the forensics expert testified the evidence was consistent with GZ's story, and the injuries to GZ were supportive of GZ's story. That's why the prosecution failed in proving a different narrative. The jury didn't sit back and flip a coin for the verdict.