The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

Why do you supose Travon couldn't make the 70 yard run to his fathers house in the 3-6 minute time span he had available? Especially since you seem convinced he was nothing more than a frightened teen running away from some scary stalker.

Just curious...

Erm... is it because he was spending all that time looking for a weapon to attack the crazy-ass cracker with, but it was too dark to find anything suitable, so he settled for using his bare hands and giving George a heads up, rather than walking right up behind George's unaware ass and introducing his canned drink to the back of George's skull?

Or do you think he was stood in the shadows getting a pep talk by Rachel Geantel and building up his courage to attack George?

Yeah, I bet it's the latter one, amirite?

reply to post by Fromabove


Small point or order; It is a gated community comprised of 30 plus percent minority residents. A black kid is hardly anything unusual. He called the cops because the kid was casually walking about in a rain storm. That is what he said during his call to the police. Either on drugs or up to no good.

Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Small point or order; It is a gated community comprised of 30 plus percent minority residents. A black kid is hardly anything unusual. He called the cops because the kid was casually walking about in a rain storm. That is what he said during his call to the police. Either on drugs or up to no good.

Point taken. However, if it were me, I would protect myself with no second thoughts at all. Anyone coming at me better mean business because I will. So I could never convict GZ beyond reasonable doubt. That and be able to sleep at night.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


You are pulling stuff out of your nose and making assumptions based upon facts not in evidence. Here is what we know:

1 Trayvon was being stalked by a crazy cracker

2. Trayvon ran away from him after his friend on the phone suggested he run

3. Zimmerman told the 911 operator that the kid starting running and we can hear him running and chasing the boy

4. Z boy says "These a&*holes always get away".

5. 911 operator asks, "are you following him"

6. Z punks replies in the affirmative and was told by the 911 operator, "you don't need to do that".

These are the facts based upon Zs own words and now confirmed by the young lady that is in her second day of testimony.

Doesn't get any more real than that.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Honestly, I think it was the later one. That was one of my probable conclusions too.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

You are pulling stuff out of your nose and making assumptions based upon facts not in evidence. Here is what we know:

1 Trayvon was being stalked by a crazy cracker

2. Trayvon ran away from him after his friend on the phone suggested he run

3. Zimmerman told the 911 operator that the kid starting running and we can hear him running and chasing the boy

4. Z boy says "These a&*holes always get away".

5. 911 operator asks, "are you following him"

6. Z punks replies in the affirmative and was told by the 911 operator, "you don't need to do that".

These are the facts based upon Zs own words and now confirmed by the young lady that is in her second day of testimony.

Doesn't get any more real than that.

In reference to #1. You're not biased at all, are you?

reply to post by Fromabove


No doubt about that. As it is your right to do so. Funny thing, I am totally against ccw laws. But it is the law, and has to be respected.

Originally posted by Fromabove
If I were to put myself in GZ's place and I was in a white only or Hispanic only neighborhood and I saw a black man in a hood ducking in and out of driveways and houses, I would be very cautious and suspicious of him. And if I was following him and he turned and started calling me racial names and telling me he was going to roll me in the grass, and I had a gun, I would protect myself from him if he came at me. But unlike Zimmerman, I wouldn't wait to have my head bounced a few times on the pavement before popping him a few times.

And this scenario could be the same if it were a black only neighborhood and a Hispanic or white man were doing the same thing and it was the black man who was getting a head bopping on the pavement. Anyone would be stupid not to protect their lives in that event. And I don't care that Martin had a bag of skiddles, He hated the cracker and that was that.

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

What a horrible country you live in.

reply to post by soundguy


I'm also against ccw laws. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

reply to post by dudeman351


I am biased. I believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I arrived at those conclusions based upon what we know. I did not consider Trayvon or Georges previous behavior except that of Z calling the cops all the time for stuff like kids playing in the street. How's that.

reply to post by GrantedBail

The prosecution in the Anthony case didn't have a case and they over charged. They also got caught, busted cold, I should say fabricating evidence in front of the jury and on national tv, with respect to the 81 times searching for chloroform. Ashton also did other kinky things during that trial. If you want to debate them I will have some coffee and go to it with you. Why do you think he announced his retirement the day after the verdict came down. He was forced out because of his behavior during that trial. He is what you call a scumbag prosecutor.

I can't debate any of that, as I agree with you! It's why her defense didn't have to do so hot.

A scumbag state attorney is the reason my stepkids and I had to wait until they were 18 before we could all be a real family again...so I'm well aware of such tactics. Once, she had someone show up to my mother's house and show a police report that I was arrested on a drug charge in Kansas. My mom calls me up, going off on me. I'm like, "Mom, when have I ever even BEEN to Kansas? When have you never been aware of where I was at some point?". Even then, it took me going down to the county sheriff's office to pull my BLANK police record, before she'd frickin' believe me! Are you kidding? The power and tricks these people pull sometimes can blow your mind. If I hadn't known better, I'd think it was some bad movie.

I am biased. I believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I arrived at those conclusions based upon what we know.

I agree. But I still think he will get off. As in the Anthony case, they over charged.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Glad you're not on the jury. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or does that only apply to liberals?

Is anyone watching the trial?

It has turned into a circus. They have an unsophisticated hostile witness on the stand. No one can really understand what she is saying. How did that person make it through school?

reply to post by dudeman351


The poster is merely stating that based on what we currently know, Zimmerman appears to be the aggressor. It's a deduction based on current evidence (and an admitted bias).

Originally posted by riffraff
You have the legal right to shoot an attacker (armed or unarmed) if you believe your life is in danger. It doesn't matter if there is one attacker or one hundred. If you slam my head into the pavement, I will shoot you. And after a long drawn out overhyped trial I will walk free. Why do you think we have guns?

No, you need to have a reasonable belief you were in danger. If, for example, you've been having a standing struggle to restrain someone on wet grass, and you slip and fall on your back with the other guy on top of you, then, as he's trying to get back up, you are holding on to his clothing while you get your gun out to shoot him, that's definitely NOT reasonable behaviour.

Originally posted by dudeman351
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

Glad you're not on the jury. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or does that only apply to liberals?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore, the media gets to decide who is and isn't guilty and then they tell people what to believe. In some cases the actual truth comes out in others the person is tried in the media and are convicted that way.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Fromabove
If I were to put myself in GZ's place and I was in a white only or Hispanic only neighborhood and I saw a black man in a hood ducking in and out of driveways and houses, I would be very cautious and suspicious of him. And if I was following him and he turned and started calling me racial names and telling me he was going to roll me in the grass, and I had a gun, I would protect myself from him if he came at me. But unlike Zimmerman, I wouldn't wait to have my head bounced a few times on the pavement before popping him a few times.

And this scenario could be the same if it were a black only neighborhood and a Hispanic or white man were doing the same thing and it was the black man who was getting a head bopping on the pavement. Anyone would be stupid not to protect their lives in that event. And I don't care that Martin had a bag of skiddles, He hated the cracker and that was that.

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

What a horrible country you live in.

And the reason is..........

Why just hate my country, why not talk about how great the one you live in is. That way I can at least criticize it properly.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I usually read each day's summary and highlights. Can't watch the trial.

reply to post by dudeman351


I would have never passed the initial questionaire that was given to prospective jurors because I have already formulated an opinion. But at least mine was formed based upon actual events not based upon speculation and stuff in people's nose cavities.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

No, you need to have a reasonable belief you were in danger. If, for example, you've been having a standing struggle to restrain someone on wet grass, and you slip and fall on your back with the other guy on top of you, then, as he's trying to get back up, you are holding on to his clothing while you get your gun out to shoot him, that's definitely NOT reasonable behaviour.

His injuries are going to make the case he was reasonably in danger. That, coupled with how vague the law is (which is why it is being reviewed), is probably going to get him off in this trial.