The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

If the conversation panned out as Zimmerman and you describe - which is far from an established fact, by the way - then I'll eat my hat. It sounds like rubbish movie dialogue.

The bulk of the conversation is corroborated by the 911 tapes and witness testimony.

The description of their encounter comes from the prosecution's version of events supported by forensic exhibits and witness testimony.

I don't see how it is subject to debate unless you are challenging the prosecutions case?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

It is against the law to punch someone but depending on the circumstance, in Florida it is legal to shoot and kill the person attacking you if you feel you are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death.

Say you aren't old enough to legally own a gun, what are you legally allowed to do then if you believe you are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death? Say you don't want to carry a gun? What are you allowed to do then? Am I allowed to defend myself with my fists if I have reasonable fear that someone might be about to shank me, or sucker-punch me? Do I have to wait for the first stabbing or punch before I can respond?

edit on 4-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

True, but being followed or watched by someone does not constitute 'imminent' danger. The person has not touched you nor broken into your private property.

Being underneath someone who is punching you does constitute such a threat.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

If the conversation panned out as Zimmerman and you describe - which is far from an established fact, by the way - then I'll eat my hat. It sounds like rubbish movie dialogue.

The bulk of the conversation is corroborated by the 911 tapes and witness testimony.

The description of their encounter comes from the prosecution's version of events supported by forensic exhibits and witness testimony.

I don't see how it is subject to debate unless you are challenging the prosecutions case?

I'm talking about the specific things which were said by Zimmerman to Martin and vice versa, which you are claiming are proven. They are not. They come from Zimmerman's account of the incident and - as far as I know - have not even been aired in court yet. They certainly do not form part of the prosecution case.

I comment merely because "You die tonight" and "you got me" sound utterly suspect. Not saying they definitely weren't said, but I have my doubts.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

##snipped##
Just to clarify...

The Hoody: I sometimes put on a hoodie and wear the hood up when it rains in winter. It was winter. It was raining.

Do you also wear yours while standing in the dark looking in other peoples windows? If you don't register hoodies and sagging pants worn by young males as the type of clothing worn by gangbangers and thugs I suggest you stay far away from the barrio or the ghetto because you are in for a rude surprise.

After you've been beaten and robbed of your shoes for walking down the wrong street in broad daylight then you can come back and tell us all that stereotypes are bad and they are good kids, just misunderstood.

In regards to the "gang-like" photos on Facebook, he was a teenager. He might look like a gangster one day, and have on a shirt and tie the next, trying on different identities. It's what teenagers do.

Sorry but the teenagers in my life don't flash semiautomatic pistols for their buddies, don't wear gold clip on teeth, own belts and understand how to fasten them so their drawers don't sag and are smart enough that if they are smoking weed, they are not posting pictures of themselves with it on social media.

Gangsta one day and suit the next? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe on the next lifetime channel inner city drama but not in the real world.

But anyway, I see you must be capable of remote viewing, or somehow managed astral projection to the scene on that evening, because you obviously know what everybody was doing and thinking.

Well, seeing as how remote viewing and astral projection are firmly rooted in the realm of the nonsensical (IMHO) I have had to rely on the next best thing and have been reading and watching the evidence as it has been presented at the trial. Everything I wrote regarding Zimmerman and Trayvon's encounter has been testified to in court.

I encourage you to fact check my assertions but I doubt you will as that doesn't support your preconceived notion of guilt as established by the media a year ago, the sequence of events as I outlined them is what has been established by the evidence and testimony presented during the prosecution phase of the trial

You may feel like this whole trial business is a waste of time as you have clearly established guilt. I prefer to hear the actual evidence from the source rather than selectively filtered through the media as ghostwritten by the Martin family attorneys.

Burden of proof and all that needless stuff

Is it a fact that Zimmerman lied about not knowing about the SYG law? I've heard others state that it wasn't even known as SYG back when he was attending classes...

Don't know who to believe...

reply to post by AlexG141989


It wasn't known as SYG, but you can believe he knew the specifics of the law, regardless what it was called, and he's involved and interested in the law, so was likely aware when it took on the name of SYG. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know about the law.

But his lie was not proven in court.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Those are all about Trayvon Martin, or pertaining to the case. Can you show a source from elsewhere that proves Lean can be made with the drink Martin had?

Originally posted by Libertygal

That was my point, as well. Why is one thing accepted as "common knowledge", but if it supports George, you want testimony?

Well that is not entirely true. It is common knowledge that Trayvon beat the crap out of George. I have never disputed that point at all and that does support George.

It is also common knowledge that these people were not there. If they had been there, they would be able to testify as to who threw the first punch and how the fight actually started.

That is why I said I would wait. Obviously, his mother wasn't there, and Brandy hasn't testified, but she made a statement on video, claiming "he went to the store and came home. He was sitting on the front porch, and some man shot him."

She can also claim that Santa Clause lives on the moon, but if she has not been to the moon she is in no position to say.

So, was she lying when she said he came home and was sitting on the front porch?

I don't know, maybe that is something to ask and find out where or how she got such information.

Why is her video taped statement any less worthy of examination than George's?

I have never said it was less worthy of examination. You did.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

If the conversation panned out as Zimmerman and you describe - which is far from an established fact, by the way - then I'll eat my hat. It sounds like rubbish movie dialogue.

The bulk of the conversation is corroborated by the 911 tapes and witness testimony.

The description of their encounter comes from the prosecution's version of events supported by forensic exhibits and witness testimony.

I don't see how it is subject to debate unless you are challenging the prosecutions case?

I'm talking about the specific things which were said by Zimmerman to Martin and vice versa, which you are claiming are proven. They are not. They come from Zimmerman's account of the incident and - as far as I know - have not even been aired in court yet. They certainly do not form part of the prosecution case.

I comment merely because "You die tonight" and "you got me" sound utterly suspect. Not saying they definitely weren't said, but I have my doubts.

You must have missed the 2 days that the prosecution presented with Zimmerman's 3 separate videotaped police interrogations to the jury as well as Rachel Jeantel's cross examination regarding what she heard said between the two.

The lead Sanford Police detective believed him and testified as much while under oath for the prosecution.

I am suspect of the "You are going to die tonight" as it does sound unusual. I have wondered if Zimmerman embellished that bit so he could claim an unquestionable threat to his life.

I dont have a problem believing Trayvons last words, they certainly do nothing for Zimmerman's case either way where as the "you gonna die" bit feeds into Zimmermans self defense from imminent harm.

George Zimmerman, the Florida man accused of second degree murder for the death of Trayvon Martin, didn't take the stand, but his voice filled the courtroom today as jurors listened to him explain several times how he came to shoot the teenager.

"He was on top of my…I shot him, and I didn't think I hit him because he sat up and said,'oh gosh you me, you got it, you got me, you got it,"Zimmerman said to lead investigator Chris Serino during a video re-enactment that was shown to the six women on the jury for the first time.

George Zimmerman Recalled Trayvon Martin Saying 'Oh Gosh, You Got Me'

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Is it a fact that Zimmerman lied about not knowing about the SYG law? I've heard others state that it wasn't even known as SYG back when he was attending classes...

Don't know who to believe...

1:30 PM EST: Court resumes. Video of Zimmerman and Sean Hannity interview is being played for the jury. - Zimmerman tells Hannity that he knew nothing of the Stand Your Ground law before the incident. globalgrind.com...

Stand Your Ground

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Reuters
An army prosecutor who taught Zimmerman in a 2010 college class on criminal litigation, testified that he often covered Florida's self-defense and "Stand Your Ground" laws in his 2010 course. Army Captain Alexis Carter said Zimmerman "was probably one of the better students in the class," calling him an "A" student.

It's all starting to make sense. This is an agenda based case. Nothing to do with facts!

I am still watching a lot of the trial footage (Youtube) and the Defense has made a good argument that I hadn't thought about.

It's in regards to the the 'Trayvon got scared because Zimmerman was watching and following him, and that's why he got defensive and fought him."

The defense is asking a neighbor about the sign that is clearly posted that reads NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH when you enter the community, and is posted throughout the community. He asks what the neighbor feels that the sign means.

Technically, it means: Do not be alarmed if someone is 'watching' you, as this is our form of neighborhood security.

The defense gives the argument that this is similar to a would-be burglar seeing an ADT sign posted at someone's house.

Basically, how could Trayvon feel 'offended' or startled that someone was watching him?



Excellent point from the Defense

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

George Zimmerman Recalled Trayvon Martin Saying 'Oh Gosh, You Got Me'

I've NEVER heard a "thug" use the phrase: "Oh Gosh". hahahahah Like, OMG...WTF. What-everrrrrrrr.

Question: in the re-enactment video, George says Martin had his hands up, as he was saying "Oh Gosh", but is that what a person would do, if they just received a bullet to the heart? Now, i knoooow Hollywood is Hollywood, but they do imitate reality. Sure, it may be to an extreme, but most times they're close. When have you ever seen someone raise their hands, after being shot in the chest? lmfao When you bump your toe, do your rub your finger?

I'm sticking with my theory...that this is all B.S. Wouldn't doubt if it were completely staged. No.....SERIOUSLY.

Call me crazy, stupid, ignorant, dumb, idiotic, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't bother me. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!!!!

The evidence points to a CONSPIRACY, more than it does anything else. #StagedEvent #PaidActors all the way around the board.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Basically, how could Trayvon feel 'offended' or startled that someone was watching him?

Zimmerman could have "watched" in the comforts of his "vehicle". Don't cry about the NSA spying on you, then. Don't get so 'offended'. Talk about a double standard society.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Is it a fact that Zimmerman lied about not knowing about the SYG law? I've heard others state that it wasn't even known as SYG back when he was attending classes...

Hannity asked Zimemrman if he knew 'Stand Your Ground'. Zimmerman said he didn't. That COULD be accurate because it wasn't 'Stand Your Ground' when Zimmerman went to class. That COULD be accurate because, just because it was in Zimmermans book under a different name doesn't mean that he studied or remembered it. But it also MIGHT not be accurate because Zimmerman might have remembered the rules but just under a different name.

Don't know who to believe...

No one really does IMHO. It's very convoluted. You aren't alone.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

NO NO NO ... that kind of thing will get you banned here. No drug talk or links .... bad bad bad!!
Just stick to the discussion about the TRIAL.
Again ... are you watching the trial? You still haven't answered that question.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Only he isn’t using a SYG defense also at the time it wasn’t called stand your ground and when his college instructor was on the stand he said they did not cover that in class.

Again if you had actually followed the trial you would know this but since you are not you keep parroting things that do not apply.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Basically, how could Trayvon feel 'offended' or startled that someone was watching him?

Zimmerman could have "watched" in the comforts of his "vehicle".

Don't cry about the NSA spying on you, then. Don't get so 'offended'.

Talk about a double standard society.

Why do you feel that Zimmerman did not have the liberty to leave his vehicle?

You haven't heard me 'cry' about the NSA, but even if I did, the difference would be that the Neighborhood Watch sign was posted in numerous places, so this particular surveillance was not covert.