The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


It still wouldn't matter honestly because there is a difference between the controlled safety of the class room and being jumped by a stranger in a dark area between houses.

Also, that is just an extreme scenario that is unlikely. If that information is allowed in then don't you think the information about Martin's past and records of fights in school should also be allowed in?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So, even if you knew that part of George's self-defence classes involved him having to use all his defence capabilities to withstand a barrage of blows from someone trained to throw punches, and then come back with punches of his own, whether he was stood up or on his back, you would still think he'd likely be in reasonable fear of his life if he'd had the beating he says he got off Trayvon, which only caused 3 insignificant injuries? Don't you think you are giving him way too much leeway?

The statement that it was 3 insignificant injuries was made by an incompetent ME that evaluated GZ's injuries from pictures, and then the ME stated that she could not evaluate his injuries out of pictures only - that witness testemony is a big failure in my book.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Martin was on top. Martin was beating him up. Zimmerman said he was in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. If Zimmerman was such a good fighter .. he wouldn't have been on the bottom and Martin wouldn't have been able to get the better of him like that. It's rather simple.

Actually it is not that simple.

Being on bottom in a fight does not mean you are a bad fighter. Have you ever heard of the guard position? It is a position of you being on your back, and your opponent between your legs on top of you. It is actually a very dominate position for a person who has trained in it and opens you up to get chokes, arm bars, knee bars and ankle locks. Zimmerman's "MMA Training" would have covered all these things.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

So, even if you knew that part of George's self-defence classes involved him having to use all his defence capabilities to withstand a barrage of blows from someone trained to throw punches, and then come back with punches of his own, whether he was stood up or on his back, you would still think he'd likely be in reasonable fear of his life if he'd had the beating he says he got off Trayvon, which only caused 3 insignificant injuries? Don't you think you are giving him way too much leeway?

The statement that it was 3 insignificant injuries was made by an incompetent ME that evaluated GZ's injuries from pictures, and then the ME stated that she could not evaluate his injuries out of pictures only - that witness testemony is a big failure in my book.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Minus because: (no reason given)

She wasn't a failure, the person who took the pics was. She just testified to the best of her ability on the available evidence. Her conclusions were based on a wealth of experience of such matters.

Is anyone missing the point that trespassing is a crime. As minor as it is still a crime. Ask how many people got stopped for jaywalking. So to say TM was commiting no crime is not true because GZ states TM is going BETWEEN houses. Trespassing > breaking the law. And you don't need a sign to argue trespass. If its not your yard don't be on it.

As for as GZ on tresspassing by following it can be argued GZ had permission to be there by being the neighborhood watch CAPTAIN elected by the residents also he was asked to keep an eye on TM which he did. Maybe I'm old fashion but I almost never walk through yards blantaly as GZ describes TM actions. Hell I walk on the side walk leaving friends houses even go out of the way to not step on the grass. Side walk is +- public, lawn +- private.

Just my opinion on TM was 100% innocent. Walking through yards is hella suspicious at least to me because I respect small stuff like that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

My god.. you are more repetitive than a parrot.
He is innocent, he was waiting on the cops.

Waiting and walking are not the same words. I sound like a parrot simply because THAT'S WHERE IT ALL STARTED! It started with Zimmerman following Martin! It didn't start with Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman wouldn't have been confronted, if he were WAITING, as you claim. He answered YES! When asked: are you following him? When did he ever WAIT?

reply to post by marbles87


There are sidewalks between the houses. He was not trespassing. He was walking home on the sidewalk. You can't get between the individual units, they are connected.

Originally posted by marbles87
Is anyone missing the point that trespassing is a crime. As minor as it is still a crime. Ask how many people got stopped for jaywalking. So to say TM was commiting no crime is not true because GZ states TM is going BETWEEN houses. Trespassing > breaking the law. And you don't need a sign to argue trespass. If its not your yard don't be on it.

The "between" the houses was a known cut through to get to the store and was also a known "dog walk" area for anyone free to use.

Trayvon Martin was not "trespassing" at all. If he was, I am sure it would have been said so in court by the defense don't you think?

Here's a map of the grounds, complete with sidewalk.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

So, even if you knew that part of George's self-defence classes involved him having to use all his defence capabilities to withstand a barrage of blows from someone trained to throw punches, and then come back with punches of his own, whether he was stood up or on his back, you would still think he'd likely be in reasonable fear of his life if he'd had the beating he says he got off Trayvon, which only caused 3 insignificant injuries? Don't you think you are giving him way too much leeway?

The statement that it was 3 insignificant injuries was made by an incompetent ME that evaluated GZ's injuries from pictures, and then the ME stated that she could not evaluate his injuries out of pictures only - that witness testemony is a big failure in my book.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Minus because: (no reason given)

She wasn't a failure, the person who took the pics was. She just testified to the best of her ability on the available evidence. Her conclusions were based on a wealth of experience of such matters.

The one picture, with the little cuts on the back of his head, are the only pics i've seen. Are there more? Why is that one picture such POOR quality? I can get better quality on a disposable camera. If his head was slammed into the cement, i'm surprised they didn't take more overwhelming pics depicting the "damage" done do Zimmerman's noggin. LOL 1 picture? Really?????? Come on now.

reply to post by MrWendal


There is a ton of stuff that the prosecution over looke and defense overlooked like maybe TM hoodie over his hands dampened the damages to his hands and kept DNA from getting on TM hands. But completely overlooked.

Originally posted by marbles87
Is anyone missing the point that trespassing is a crime. As minor as it is still a crime. Ask how many people got stopped for jaywalking. So to say TM was commiting no crime is not true because GZ states TM is going BETWEEN houses. Trespassing > breaking the law. And you don't need a sign to argue trespass. If its not your yard don't be on it.

Actually, in Florida there must be "NO TRESPASSING" signs posted within every 500 feet. I've never heard if such signs were posted in that community.


"Responsibility of Notice
Under Florida Statute 588.10, a property owner does have the responsibility of providing notice with "No Trespassing" signs, in addition to providing signage detailing any potential dangers to anyone who enters the property. Under this law, all boundaries on the land such as fence corners, gates, private roads, rivers, or fences in the woods must be clearly marked with "No Trespassing" signs. Florida law demands that these signs are no longer than 500 feet apart at any point. If no signs are posted, the trespasser may not be found guilty of trespassing at all, and in case of an injury, the property owner can even be held liable in certain circumstances."



www.ehow.com...

reply to post by IvanAstikov


She wasn't a failure.. she was a paid witness. That means it was her job to downplay the wounds on behalf of the state. She says whatever they want her to say.

If you are unsure about the seriousness about the injury just look at Natasha Richardson.

reply to post by WonderBoi


There are multiple pictures.. not just one.
Also you can't tell the damage caused by a head injury from the skin alone. Again I refer you also to the death of Natasha Richardson.

reply to post by UnBreakable


I retract. I was sure I heard from GZ he said he saw TM walking in the grass between houses between poles. Granted trespass is hard to get in FL makes it pointless to use against TM but little details like this are crucial in trying to prove why each person could have been thinking each other was a threat.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well he wasn't walking home from the store when he confronted and attacked Zimmerman. He had already made it to his house then hung around outside for several minutes instead of going in, then he saw Zimmerman and approached him and all evidence suggests attacked.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

There actually is evidence of it, just because you choose not to observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think you realize the difference between evidence and proof.

The evidence would be that their attorney sought Rachel out, coerced her via interviews. He only allowed her to be interviewed by herself with him asking the questions. I remembered that being questionable at the time, but after seeing her in court it was well explained. Then in court she made it clear that she wasn't a fan of Crump and rushed through the interview "in a closet" and that she never thought it would go this far or that she would be in court. This is all evidence that points to the fact that she was coerced into giving the story she gave in order to get the settlement and she wasn't quite with it enough to understand the reverberations her lies would have and that she would be at risk when she was in court. If the Martin's and the attorney cared at all about this disposable tool they would have told her not to say anything that wasn't true or that could get her in trouble later in court.

It's not very good evidence, is it? Because the only person it suggests did any coercing (which it in no way proves) is their lawyer. You may think he acted improperly in order to secure his clients a good result, but that is what lawyers do.

So you still have nothing that suggests they coerced her. And you have nothing that is even minor, circumstantial evidence that suggests that Martin's parents "didn't tell Rachel that she would eventually have to go to the stand in the criminal case (where she would be torn apart)" as a purposeful tactic. And you still have nothing whatsoever that shows they purposely and callously profiteered from his death.

So your smearing remains baseless.


Also rereading that post I just noticed

I write (short stories/novels).

You're question is convoluted

Lulz.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

She wasn't a failure.. she was a paid witness. That means it was her job to downplay the wounds on behalf of the state. She says whatever they want her to say.

If you are unsure about the seriousness about the injury just look at Natasha Richardson.

George isn't claiming he fell and his head hit the floor, he says Martin slammed it against the floor, which we know isn't true anyway.

ps. Ooh, you swine... you made me break my promise not to respond to you!

reply to post by marbles87


I personally think that Trayvon seemed so suspicious because he was either casing the area or under the influence of cough syrup which he openly discussed abusing on his facebook page.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Martin was on top. Martin was beating him up. Zimmerman said he was in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. If Zimmerman was such a good fighter .. he wouldn't have been on the bottom and Martin wouldn't have been able to get the better of him like that. It's rather simple.

Just because Zimmerman was getting his butt handed to him in the fight doesn't make him innocent. If I go into a bar, verbally abuse some random person minding their own business, maybe I even make physical contact with them, which causes a fight (maybe it was my intention to cause the fight) and I end up losing, I even start 'fearing' for my life, does this mean the other person is in the wrong? Or was I still in the wrong for initiating the fight? For causing the tension to somebody who was just minding their own business?

Evidence of a fight does not make Trayvon guilty. Evidence that Zimmerman was losing the fight does not mean that Trayvon initiated the initial fight, it does not mean that he started it all, it does not automatically make Zimmerman innocent in all this.