The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

that is exactly why they wont let zimmerman testify, the prosecution would tear his testimony to pieces, they don't need to have him testify and they wouldn't let him either way, they know there are so many holes in his story its not even funny. they claim he had some kind of amnesia and thats why he had all these inconsistent statements. you know who else claimed amnesia? james holmes and jodi arias.

People's memory are odd things, particularly when involved in a life altering event. Some portions of that event will stand out clear as day, while other parts may be as murky or virtually non-existent.

To imply what you have, while containing some possible validity, is extremely biased. Six people can witness one event, not being participants, and there will be 6 different variations of the event, all matching in many ways, but all containing their own particular variations. The participant will have yet another variation...this has been demonstrated time and again in carefully controlled environments.

Remember: innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
So he was employed as a snitch??who emploted him??? who payed his salary??...

Neighborhood watch, buddy. Your job is to report shady stuff to the police. I don't even know why I bother replying.

edit on 11-7-2013 by InstantRemedy because: (no reason given)

Shady stuff like a Bag of Garbage in the street that "may contain glass"....yeah, the police must have sprung into action that day..or maybe they were waiting on his next phone call about Four to eleven year olds running amok in his Hood.

Yeah, way to go Batman.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

That is your speculation.

I think the reason they told him not to testify was because they want him to bring as little attention to himself as possible. They know they are heading towards acquittal and his attorney has already stated he fears for his life.

George looked like he kinda wanted to testify which tells me he is confident in his story and wouldn't be "torn apart"
He gave the story like 4 times over without any real changes and without a lawyer present. He could have testified, it's just best he doesn't so it doesn't rile the people up.

Keep on trying though.

If you think you have it in the bag, or even an excellent chance of acquittal, why would any sane, logical, intelligent counsel allow his client to testify? We all know how an innocent person can be portrayed as guilty by a wily lawyer twisting words and asking pointed questions without allowing explanation.
Of course, prosecution does not seem to be at that level of expertise

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Or George would be dead from having his head bashed in.


So I take it you want people to advocate for people to stay in their car when they see a possible crime.

Nothing to see here move along. Only criminals should be armed right. Blahh!!!

Yeah. Except in this case

- there wasn't a crime
- there wasn't a criminal
- the person who was the 'possible' criminal wasn't armed

So you're left with a dead kid. Good work guns.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman is innocent, and should never have been prosecuted in this matter. My amusement comes from the black lawyers who I am sure met the same standards and passed the same multi-state bar exams other lawyers in this country passed without consideration being given to their race.

I know when I was in law school and undergrad school in Michigan there were dual standards for grading blacks and whites, and in Iowa there are different standards for grading blacks and whites in law schools, and I would imagine that also carries on through writing the multi-state bar exam.

I find it interesting that almost all of the black lawyers on these broadcasts were "prosecutors" you know, people who had a preferential hiring leg up on others. Of course, I think we all know that a prosecutor or a U.S. Attorney is in fact an individual who could not practice here in the real world.

I find it amusing listening to these people talk in a language I do not understand, when viewing Blacks on TV you can come to a conclusion very quickly who the real racists are, and who obtained their licenses because of skin color instead of hard work, merit, and brains. John

Originally posted by RickKilgannon

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
If George hadn't been armed would he have followed Martin? Probably not. Would he have shot him? Obviously not. I don't say this to exonerate Martin's behaviour, but without the presence of the firearm in the situation George would be at home eating his tea and Martin would be, I dunno, smoking weed. Both better scenarios than the current one.

If GZ would have still gotten out of his truck to try and locate TM without his gun, it may have also turned out that GZ is dead and TM is boasting to his boys how he beat a "crazy ass cracker" to death while he was at his dads?

Maybe. But perhaps he wouldn't have got out of his truck. And I seriously doubt he would have been beaten to death if he had.

Like I say, without the gun, chances are they'd both be sitting at home now. It takes a particularly perverse faith in weaponry to suggest that that's a worse scenario than the current one.

reply to post by roadgravel


Not really. We are still left with the mystery of who approached who and what happened next. Trayvon had every right to stand anywhere within that area and wait to see what Zimmerman wanted, and if Zimmerman carries on walking forward when you ask why you are being followed, if they don't stop immediately and explain themselves, they are putting themself in an "anything goes" situation of their own making. At that point, you should have lost the right to reach for your gun, and the person you have provoked into action is entitled to fight as if their life depends on it if you do.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

His "Get out of jail free" card for that is, he was so taken by surprise, he didn't even think of reaching for his gun for over 40 seconds, and only then because Trayvon said he wanted to use it, as his arms were getting tired, or something.,

Was Martin trying to kill him? I think not, that is really pushing it to say he was out to kill Zimmerman. Was Martin trying to kick some cracker's ass...well ya... Is there a single person here convince that Martin was trying to kill him?

Hmm...let me consult my crystal ball for the answer to the question of whether Martin would have killed GZ.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Was Martin trying to kill him? I think not, that is really pushing it to say he was out to kill Zimmerman. Was Martin trying to kick some cracker's ass...well ya... Is there a single person here convince that Martin was trying to kill him?

But at the time when it is happening to you. You dont know if he is trying to kill you or not. Its only clear on hindsight something that you dont have in a fight.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


That is what the non emergency number is for....... To report things you think should be looked into, but is not an immediate emergency. Why are people acting like he was wasting 911 time or something? Unless he was actually calling 911, then he is an idiot. Even that night, he didn't call 911, he called the non emergency number, so I highly doubt those are 911 calls......

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
Yeah, way to go Batman.

Do you have a point in your rant or are you just among the people that chose sides prior to the fact and are only out to throw crap at GZ for what he does for a living?

Again, he was a neighborhood watch person. He's supposed to report stuff to the police.

Obviously he didn't compare himself to Batman if this is what you're going for. But keep going, laugh at how he is a "snitch". Do you also laugh at computer engineers being geeks?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Hey, I can speculate all I want.

Not in a court of law you cant.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Hey, I can speculate all I want. The only person who REALLY knows what happened that night is Zimmerman, and he has hardly proved the most reliable source memory-wise, or honesty-wise. Zimmerman supporters have been quite happy to let their imaginations run rampant thinking about the savage AA kid who attacked their hero, so don't get your panties bunched when the opposition do it.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

The opposition? The same people who are ignoring, apparently, the evidence presented in court? The prosecution's evidence that helps the defense more than the prosecution?
The prosecution that has actually failed to reach a level to even justify this case making it to court?
The same prosecution that has presented multiple possible scenarios because there is no single scenario they can present that paints GZ as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
The same prosecution who, in presenting multiple scenarios, has actually helped present the jury with even more doubt of GZ's guilt?
That opposition? That prosecution?

We should just declare our justice system as "guilt until proven innocent" by your approach and those who would have GZ arrested and tried to satisfy the ignorant masses. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Not really. We are still left with the mystery of who approached who and what happened next. Trayvon had every right to stand anywhere within that area and wait to see what Zimmerman wanted, and if Zimmerman carries on walking forward when you ask why you are being followed, if they don't stop immediately and explain themselves, they are putting themself in an "anything goes" situation of their own making...

That more of this,

Sure, you can follow me around all day and night, but if I head into a deserted unlit area and you follow me, I am only going to suspect the worst and if you get near enough to be threatening, you're going to pay for it.

You are saying you can use violence because you do not like what the person is doing. If Tm had that mentality then it probably happened just as GZ stated.

Why is it that a majority of of those who think this dude is innocent is white? But it's not race related?

Why is it okay to stump on the civil right of a young black man who was simply walking home one night?

Why is it okay for Zimmerman to shoot this kid out of protection, but it's not okay for the young man to protect himself?

Why is it okay to paint this 17 year old as a weed smoking thug, but not okay to paint Zimmerman with the title of a grown repeated offender?

Why are we letting White America dictate to us what is and what is not acceptable behavior of our young black youth?

Why isn't there more protection for the innocent and all the protection in the world for the guilty.

If aqquited what message is this really sending to black America? That we can change gun laws when some madman shoots up a school full of white children, but look the other way when a madman shoots a black kid down in the streets, because the gunman didn't feel he belonged there.........further more the young man deserved to be questioned by the gunman because his actions of being in the wrong place at the wrong time were more then enough reason for him to die........

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Well it is still a free country and I refuse to be intimidated because a certain group of people feel they have the right to assault myself because I am walking in the same direction.

It is better for those people to learn not to assault strangers because they may be shot and killed in self defense. This may have to happen a few more times before those people understand the law.

Yeah that's working really well at the moment. Perhaps if you just get a few more dead teenagers the violence will stop. And maybe another couple of school shootings will stop the, er, school shootings.

reply to post by InstantRemedy


I did say I'd never been in a situation where I've had to fight for control of a gun. If you say you have, I'm prepared to accept your word on what happened in your experiences, but I'm going to disagree that there's never a time when you should hesitate to shoot. If you was at a family wedding and that cousin who you had never got on with started attacking you, would you pull out your gun and shoot him without a second thought, or would you try and reason with the drunken family member? Say a guy is trying to kill you with his crutch while hopping on one leg? Are you going to kill him too? What about an out of control 12 yr old girl who is waving a knife and heading towards you with blazing eyes? Aim for the head in case you might miss the heart?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by TKDRL

 

1. I wasn't even around for the first thread, so don't lump me in with whatever has been said in there. I'm here in this thread, arguing with the information available when I joined, and disclosed since, not when the media was generating viewing figures based on speculation and misinformation. I've never been led by media sources since the press in my own country reported 11 dead in a jail riot, when in fact one had died of a heart attack long after the riot had ended. I have tried to seperate my loathing for news media agencies throughout this case, and I wish others could do the same and stop feeding on the chum they throw.

2. What I expect is, if you can fight back, do so. Taking out a gun and firing it at an attacker isn't fighting back, it's putting an end to a fight, or it should be if you are competent with your gun. It amazes me how someone who is so ready to resort to a fatal solution to a fight, can have such abhorrence for those who are capable of using their fists and other methods to stop a violent attack. I don't expect an elderly woman who is attacked by a 16st hulking rapist to rely on her fists if she has a better weapon, but you don't get a pass if your own actions are what get you into a fight, and then you reach for a concealed gun.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

I dont think you get that haveing a conclealed gun for defence is pefectly legal in that state.

It does not matter if you think thats right of wrong (that for a gun debate) thats the law as its stands and the trial is not about changeing that la. Only if Zimmerman acted within that law.

reply to post by roadgravel


Where did I say it's okay to use violence if you don't like what someone is doing? I'm saying it's okay to use violence if you have reasonable belief that your well-being may be in danger, and you don't have to wait to be stabbed, punched or shot to do it. Just like George is, and just like Trayvon would, had Zimmerman been a less lucky shot.

I haven't said that if someone is walking behind me in broad daylight and gets a little close, I can turn around and clock them, then jump on their prostrate figure and finish the job off.

reply to post by beatbox


Nice, so you assume everyone here is a white racist then? Why is it that it seems the most racist, and bigotted people, are always the one bringing race into it in the first place? Me for example, I am native american, I do look white to some people though.

This whole case was racially charged mess from the getgo. I would be siding with Zimmerman at this point, no matter what race he is, no matter what race Martin was. The evidence doesn't care about race, and neither do I.