The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Well the good news is that the riots will not be breaking out here in Florida.

Why you ask…

Because stand your ground and self-defense had just been upheld only the truly stupid would try to trash our neighborhoods in which case we can give them all Darwin wards at their grave site.

Is there any particular reason you feel your neighbourhood might be targeted, or are you just being alarmist? Were any homes targeted during the Rodney King riots?

Originally posted by GrantedBail

The law does not say if you are getting your rear handed to you as a result of your own aggression, you are allowed to equal the playing field by using a firearm. What a soft azz punk. I would love to get my hands on his obese rear end.

Go for it, last time someone did that to him they got what was coming.. I do not know what planet or country your on but here in America, self defense and to be secure in your own persons is a RIGHT..

Show us the proof, show us this law, show us Zimmerman is guilty.. Prove it or get lost..

reply to post by Grimpachi


You just don't think things through. Do you really think there are going to be riots?? I would not think so. This is not Rodney King where the whole entire system was rigged in Los Angeles. You denigrate all of us if you think that we are gonna go crazy and destruct property over a fair trial. I don't see that happening.

You show your racism when you preclude riots to be the outcome. You cannot compare this to the Rodney King trial and I doubt you were even out of diapers when it occurred. That was a serious racist issue. I am not saying it was OK to wreck the neighborhood but there were people acting out in desperation.

It appears this slug (Zimmerman) is getting a fair trial. That is all anyone can ask. I would think that we will all respect the process after deeming it fair, irrespective if it goes the way certain people believe or not.

You would have had a problem had not this worm of an individual not been brought before a fair and even justice system. That he was should cure most ills.

We have a system of justice. It is imperfect, but if we all submit to it, and agree it is the one we are left with, we must, as citizens, accept it's outcome. But only if the process has been fair, which I will accept it has been.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Well I guess you didn’t have much to say about the real trial today HUH… It didn’t go so good for your predisposition CUZ U WUZ …. Forget it I can’t speak or type Ebonics like you.

Your weak insults have nothing to do with the trial. You may care but I do not. Zim is going to walk I have been saying it all along and I love the prosecution right now because they are doing nothing but helping Zim. T-thug was a punk who thought it was the school yard well he was schooled and hopefully all the other want to be thugs out there will learn from his mistake because it is too late for him.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Just stop before you fall to far behind the rest of the class.

Otherwise.

Please go ahead and find a quote of mine where I said I thought there would be riots.

If you could comprehend posts you would have noticed we were replying to another poster who asked who do we blame if there are riots.

You are really showing you ignorance and inability to comprehend posts.

Now go ahead and find my quote I can wait or just quite being....never mind.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


What you are arguing doesn't even make sense. I am not leaving any details out and am open to all info. Yeah you are right, if things didnt happen as Zimmerman said then maybe he would lie, but no evidence suggests that AND my point was that the star witness for prosecution's NEW revised story matches Zimmerman. She was the only reason anyone ever questioned his story, so if she admitted to lying and then told the truth and it matched what Zimmerman said then common sense tells you the case was based on a lie.

The star witness was a joke. She lied multiple times, so many holes in her story.. The defense team tore the testimony apart.. The whole situation in the courtroom with her calling the questions retarded and that "white ass cracker" was nothing racial at all... Seems fishy..


[off topic image removed]

reply to post by Grimpachi


OMG. I made real salient points. As well as responded to your ridiculous premise that "there will be riots".

Here is what has NOT been established: Who attacked who? The evidence does suggest to this point that Zpunk ran down the kid. The kid defended himself and messed up Zpunks noodle (LOL). The bumps were all over his fat head. Your boy is "soft". Ha ha, just like the defense said he was in opening statements. Zpunk wrote a check he could not cash. When he was getting punked by a 17 year old because he is a pu@@y he pulled a firearm he should have NEVER been carrying on a neighborhood watch assignment.

He is a punk. He was seeking psychiatric help because he was a punk and was probably (ha ha, that will come out next week) taking meds because he is a punk.

I have taught my kids since they were in kindergarten how to avoid strangers. You get more involved in the directions once they are bigger. My kid's were always taught to run from strangers if they were being engaged. They were taught to never talk to strangers, never get in a car with strangers, never go with anyone unless it was myself or their father. They were taught strategies if someone came up behind them and grabbed them, what to do with their arms. And so on and so forth. They were given complete instruction upon what to do if they were being engaged by a stranger. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is what parents do.

Getting back to the trial today, I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't question officer Tim Smith about whether he noticed any vehicles parked facing the T when he drove down Twin Trees Lane. It'd be nice to establish whether George was entirely honest about where his vehicle was parked, when he left it to follow TM.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Actually it makes a world of difference which is why that is being brought up in court. This case has gotten very interesting. It is pretty sad that they have to play back what the witness said to them and they still disagree that’s what they said.


Right now I think the star witness for the state has been severely discredited.

I have not finished watching her testimony, but I do not think she has been seriously discredited. If anything, the longer her questioning continues, the more credible she seems. She is obviously not very educated, speaks low, and you have to kind of figure out what she means. The longer this questioning continues, the easier it is to understand her attitude problem, and the easier to is to see the attorney playing semantics over particular words. After about the 3rd hour of questioning, he was not longer "discrediting" her- he was gaining her sympathy.

Furthermore- remember these words.....

It does not matter if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman first.

Reason? Because the jury will be given instructions to allow for a lesser charge. One like manslaughter. A manslaughter charge does not involve intent. A charge of manslaughter entertains the question, "Did Zimmerman put into motion the chain of events that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin?" The answer to that is yes. Had Zimmerman not followed Trayvon- there would be no shooting.

Also interesting to note is the time of the cell phone calls. For anyone who watched the opening statements carefully, the State touched on this briefly and it pokes a HUGE hole in Zimmerman's argument. I dont think we have even seen the start of this explored yet in the testimony.... but we will.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco


You, and others, are attempting to show that Zimmerman's racism was imputed by his use of the word 'black' because the patent absurdity of such an allegation suggests that any criticism of him based on racial lines comes from an absurd premise. This is deceptive.

You didn't understand. His use of the word black doesn't prove he is racist or not racist. No one is implying that (well pro trayvon supporters seem to think his saying "black" has some implication only they can sense). The reason we presume he is not racist is because he has black ancestry (his great grandmother I think) and the fact that he tutored black children, and most important never given ANYTHING to implicate he is racist.

Zimmerman has never said or done anything that would make one assume he is racist against black people.

The rest of your comments were just deflection or ignoring the points made. You were shown to be wrong and you couldn't admit to it. I am not biased at all in this case. As other posters here can tell you, I started the argument on Trayvon's side when the case first broke, but as time passed and I started understanding the evidence and what happened I realized that Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman was justified.


I like that rather than answer to the fact that the girl lied and her lie was the reason it went to court you just deflect and make personal statements about me. That shows something about you. No sense in arguing with you anymore.

I think Zimmerman is going to beat this case.

With that being said, I think the new can of worms this opens says....,

If you don't have a firearm, cant legally carry concealed you had better get right, and quick like!

Because beating this case confirms that you can in fact follow someone, be discovered doing the following, approach the the person your following, get into a scuffle with the person (regardless who made physical contact first), finally pull your firearm and kill the person you wanted dead...... I mean you were following.

It's plain and simple. You can legally follow then kill anyone you chose.

People arm yourselves!!

You have to be prepared now. Being naive and wearing your rosé colored glasses is just stupid.


You have two choices. Follow or be followed.

If being followed you can not know the motives of the follower.

Also, if following someone from this day forward you had better expect the person you are following to be armed.

This is what things have now devolved into.

Unfortunately, the odds need to be even across the board.

Lol..... The wild Wild West is now in full affect!!!!

Hahahahahaha


Good job people.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Again I will ask. WHERE did I say there would be riots.

Yesterday I asked you two questions repeatedly and you didn’t answer those either.

So show me where I said I thought there would be riots.

I know you can’t.

As for the rest of your comments that are wildly based. Just make sure to teach your kids not to attack people it may save their lives. Don’t let them become want to be thugs like T-thug.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

What you are arguing doesn't even make sense. I am not leaving any details out and am open to all info. Yeah you are right, if things didnt happen as Zimmerman said then maybe he would lie, but no evidence suggests that AND my point was that the star witness for prosecution's NEW revised story matches Zimmerman. She was the only reason anyone ever questioned his story, so if she admitted to lying and then told the truth and it matched what Zimmerman said then common sense tells you the case was based on a lie.

She was not the only reason this case came to trial. All she could ever confirm is what she heard whilst on the phone, and she could never be expected to know exactly what went down. However, independent evidence proves that she was on the phone in the moments before Trayvon was shot, and she strongly denied any suggestion that Trayvon might have been planning to attack George.

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Well your first bit was right, then you start either lying or showing you don't understand the testimony.

The prosecutions star testimony shows that Martin actually waited on and confronted Zimmerman. So if Zimmerman was wrong for getting out of the car, then Martin was wrong for not going in his home and instead waiting outside on Zimmerman. At that point what he was doing was no different than what Zimmerman had begun doing.

Zimmerman got out to try to see Martin again (not following - looking for) after he ran, then when Zimmerman was told to stop looking for him he did and started back to his truck. Meanwhile Martin had run home, but rather than go inside he waited several minutes and then walked to Zimmerman who was on his way back to the truck and confronted him. The only questions are who threw the first punch, (not who confronted whom because both defense and prosecution state Trayvon made first contact) and was Zimmerman justified in the shooting. The answers to those questions will be (if anything) that trayvon attacked first, and that Zimmerman was justified.

You wrong, get with reality..

reply to post by IvanAstikov


She was the reason. She was the first person and only person that gave an alternative account to Zimmerman's. She was the reason it went to court.

She is a proven liar on multiple accounts and admitted that she was lying or "rushin'" through the interviews that were the basis for the case. The prosecutions statement was that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and killed him in cold blood. Their key witness (when finally telling the truth in court) showed that Martin wasn't really afraid, waited on Zimmerman, and made contact first. All of her stuff about him not fighting is dubious at best considering by her own account the phone was disconnected before she heard any of the things she claimed that supported Trayvon. She also did say she assumed Trayvon got into a fight and that's why he didn't call back.
So most likely she was aware that he was waiting to confront and fight the person after him, and that's what he did and it got him killed.

reply to post by MrWendal


Well her testimony is over and yes she was discredited.

Also I disagree. Manslaughter is the only thing they can even try to do however even that isn’t clear whether or not they can drop the charges to that. I believe the main reason is in a manslaughter case you need a jury of 12 this case has 6 and retrying him would be double jeopardy.

It would also depend on if TM doubled back or laid n wait and if it can be proven who started the fight however because they are using a self-defense (defense) I do not think it matters. Manslaughter is generally used in instances where negligence has been shown such as DWI.

Honestly this case is pretty much done.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by PLASIFISK

 

Well your first bit was right, then you start either lying or showing you don't understand the testimony.

The prosecutions star testimony shows that Martin actually waited on and confronted Zimmerman. So if Zimmerman was wrong for getting out of the car, then Martin was wrong for not going in his home and instead waiting outside on Zimmerman. At that point what he was doing was no different than what Zimmerman had begun doing.

Zimmerman got out to try to see Martin again (not following - looking for) after he ran, then when Zimmerman was told to stop looking for him he did and started back to his truck. Meanwhile Martin had run home, but rather than go inside he waited several minutes and then walked to Zimmerman who was on his way back to the truck and confronted him. The only questions are who threw the first punch, (not who confronted whom because both defense and prosecution state Trayvon made first contact) and was Zimmerman justified in the shooting. The answers to those questions will be (if anything) that trayvon attacked first, and that Zimmerman was justified.

You wrong, get with reality..

Your wrong, get with reality.

Again Zimmerman said he FOLLOWED Martin. Following is following.

It's not illegal to follow people.

You want sooooo bad for Zimmerman not to have followed that you are trying to change his own words.

Hahaha

Reality.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I answered all your questions as well as showed you where you lied in your representation of evidence. I don't know if you have mental issues, or you just make stuff up. I am not sure what your deal is. But I continually have busted you on making stuff up. You said this was in testimony; you said that was in testimony.... ad infinitum.

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...

You are just a little boy, I bet no more than 20 years old. You certainly have not had any secondary education. It is clear by your ability to think critically.

I don't hold it against you. You think only on the level that you are capable.