The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by ugie1028


That's right, focus on my speculative bit and totally ignore that it was me who had the right timeline.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Believing something is true and it being true aren't quite the same thing.

Anyway, the saying yes or no to the voice is pretty hard to believe someone is truly certain.. My point is that if anyone was to be believed to have the best chance of doing it, I would go with the medic. He would have been in that situation many times.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I have & had my timeline right. you just went off the deep end bringing up other parts of the other various audio clips that the witness wasn't listening to. that's where you went wrong. you jumped into speculation about others into how GZ was feeling when the witness was focusing on one!

again ill state it again... maybe it will get through this time.

the lady witness in the blue. her name escapes me right now. she was listening to the clip of when TM got away, NOT when he circled the car.

your straw-mans wont work here. I don't understand what you're trying to prove but i can tell you one thing. its not working.

I think the prosecution shot themselves in the foot by bringing Sybrina Fulton to the stand. She came across as a mother who badly wanted to believe that her son didn't cause his own death, as O'Mara stated. I think also the way she said it was Trayvon when asked reeked of 'coached'. It didn't seem like a natural response one would have to such a question. Zimmerman's friends who are saying its him come across as more genuine... Also, I think Trayvon's brother was also genuine in his belief that it was Trayvon. Even so, I think its a mighty waste of time concentrating on what these people THINK, who weren't there and couldn't possibly say for sure

Wait until the defense recalls Rachel Jeantel. They'll grill her on her "..... it was just another fight............" testimony from earlier and that will seal the deal for GZ, as if he won't already be acquitted based on testimony thus far.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I resent the accusation and state here and now ftr that it wasn't my intention. You can believe what you want, I'm not interested in your opinion on this specific aspect anymore.

I'll just leave you with a reference to the word "goon" that is not my own.

“That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon,” Serino said. “In his mind’s eye, he perceived you as a threat. He has every right to defend himself.”

Read more here: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

reply to post by ugie1028

the lady witness in the blue. her name escapes me right now. she was listening to the clip of when TM got away, NOT when he circled the car.

That's exactly what I just said. I also said that the circling bit of Zimmerman's account happened before that bit. You're not contesting that are you?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I was only mentioning one thing on one bit of audio. you're the one who brought up other bits of audio. You commented on other bits of audio which the witness wasn't listening to at the time of me commenting. you used a straw-man tactic there.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

which is exactly what you did and what I called you on.

dance around it as much as you want.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

I resent the accusation and state here and now ftr that it wasn't my intention. You can believe what you want, I'm not interested in your opinion on this specific aspect anymore.

I'll just leave you with a reference to the word "goon" that is not my own.

“That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon,” Serino said. “In his mind’s eye, he perceived you as a threat. He has every right to defend himself.”

Read more here: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

edit on 8-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

this post just shows me what you are doing, you notice that in the quote you posted he didn't say " fecking goons"
so why did you fell it necessary, to enhance it, or embislhing it by adding the word fecking. instead of saying it the way he did. the only place that came close to what you said ""Fecking goons" was CNN's tape with "F.....C...s"

so again we have come full circle to the fact that you are intentionally sensationalizing and embellishing the facts.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
I think the prosecution shot themselves in the foot by bringing Sybrina Fulton to the stand. She came across as a mother who badly wanted to believe that her son didn't cause his own death, as O'Mara stated. I think also the way she said it was Trayvon when asked reeked of 'coached'. It didn't seem like a natural response one would have to such a question. Zimmerman's friends who are saying its him come across as more genuine... Also, I think Trayvon's brother was also genuine in his belief that it was Trayvon. Even so, I think its a mighty waste of time concentrating on what these people THINK, who weren't there and couldn't possibly say for sure

The defense asked then last witness from the SPD who was going to testify that TM's father initially said that wasn't TM screaming for help. But surprisingly the prosectution objected and the judge ruled for them..... again.

Serino is back on the stand.

in my honest Opinion he is GZ's strongest witness.

It is amazing to me to see a few people in this thread who just wish to troll the whole topic. They have no regard to truth in the matter, just as long as they get to keep trying to paint the defendant as a horrible child killing monster. The true fact of the matter in this case is that it is the deceased's parent's fault for rasing such a brazen, brash, heathen of a child. My children have always been taught that even if there is a percieved threat, get indoors, avoid confrontation, arm themselves, and call for help. NEVER have they been taught to confront an unknown situation. This kid thought he was bullet proof, he unfortunately had to find out different by trying to be a tough guy. He should have taken cover, not confronted if he indeed felt threatened, which according to the witnesses he did not feel threatened, just irritated, that is a fact. He had every chance to avoid confrontation but instead he sought after it. He could have called the police but instead he did not, instead he took matters into his own hands and paid the utimate price.

why is it that this is so hard for people to understand? Better yet why does any form of logic escape those who keep painting this as a murder by intent, rather than a unfortunate fatallity cause by a thug kid's idiot actions?

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
It is amazing to me to see a few people in this thread who just wish to troll the whole topic. They have no regard to truth in the matter, just as long as they get to keep trying to paint the defendant as a horrible child killing monster. The true fact of the matter in this case is that it is the deceased's parent's fault for rasing such a brazen, brash, heathen of a child. My children have always been taught that even if there is a percieved threat, get indoors, avoid confrontation, arm themselves, and call for help. NEVER have they been taught to confront an unknown situation. This kid thought he was bullet proof, he unfortunately had to find out different by trying to be a tough guy. He should have taken cover, not confronted if he indeed felt threatened, which according to the witnesses he did not feel threatened, just irritated, that is a fact. He had every chance to avoid confrontation but instead he sought after it. He could have called the police but instead he did not, instead he took matters into his own hands and paid the utimate price.

why is it that this is so hard for people to understand? Better yet why does any form of logic escape those who keep painting this as a murder by intent, rather than a unfortunate fatallity cause by a thug kid's idiot actions?

Completely agree. It sucks that anyone had to die, especially a 17 year old with his whole life ahead of him, but this was clearly self-defense.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
It is amazing to me to see a few people in this thread who just wish to troll the whole topic. They have no regard to truth in the matter, just as long as they get to keep trying to paint the defendant as a horrible child killing monster. The true fact of the matter in this case is that it is the deceased's parent's fault for rasing such a brazen, brash, heathen of a child. My children have always been taught that even if there is a percieved threat, get indoors, avoid confrontation, arm themselves, and call for help. NEVER have they been taught to confront an unknown situation. This kid thought he was bullet proof, he unfortunately had to find out different by trying to be a tough guy. He should have taken cover, not confronted if he indeed felt threatened, which according to the witnesses he did not feel threatened, just irritated, that is a fact. He had every chance to avoid confrontation but instead he sought after it. He could have called the police but instead he did not, instead he took matters into his own hands and paid the utimate price.

why is it that this is so hard for people to understand? Better yet why does any form of logic escape those who keep painting this as a murder by intent, rather than a unfortunate fatallity cause by a thug kid's idiot actions?

Yep, if TM had gone to his father's house and called police, he'd still be here.

Originally posted by UnBreakable

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
It is amazing to me to see a few people in this thread who just wish to troll the whole topic. They have no regard to truth in the matter, just as long as they get to keep trying to paint the defendant as a horrible child killing monster. The true fact of the matter in this case is that it is the deceased's parent's fault for rasing such a brazen, brash, heathen of a child. My children have always been taught that even if there is a percieved threat, get indoors, avoid confrontation, arm themselves, and call for help. NEVER have they been taught to confront an unknown situation. This kid thought he was bullet proof, he unfortunately had to find out different by trying to be a tough guy. He should have taken cover, not confronted if he indeed felt threatened, which according to the witnesses he did not feel threatened, just irritated, that is a fact. He had every chance to avoid confrontation but instead he sought after it. He could have called the police but instead he did not, instead he took matters into his own hands and paid the utimate price.

why is it that this is so hard for people to understand? Better yet why does any form of logic escape those who keep painting this as a murder by intent, rather than a unfortunate fatallity cause by a thug kid's idiot actions?

Yep, if TM had gone to his father's house and called police, he'd still be here.

btw, didn't Rachel say that Tm was actually by his house after he'd ran away? If that's true, then how the hell did he end up where he died unless he either went back, or Zimmerman dragged him all the way back... lol

BOOM! Lead Detective Serino just sealed the case for the DEFENSE.

He stated that Martins father denied it was Martins voice.

The Prosecution laughed and said that Zimmerman denied it was his own voice.

Serino then stated that ZImmermans words were ... "It doesn't even sound like me".

WHich is pretty accurate .. no one's voice sounds the same to themselves when they
listen to it on tape. The way my voice sounds in my head is very different from what it
sounds like on tape.

WEAK and lame on the part of the prosecution.

reply to post by FlyersFan


agreed. Serino has been rock solid for the defense... and he was the lead detective of this case.

He was the one who couldn't arrest him because of the lack of evidence... Which makes it go back to the main question. Why is Zimmerman on trial again?

SIDE NOTE ... OBSERVATION on Martins parents - MSNBC kept showing the parents in the audience. What they were doing ... They were both chomping gum and passing notes during the testimony. When Serino stated that Martins father said it wasn't Martins voice .. Martins father passed a note to Martins mother and he had a little side smile while he passed the note.

Originally posted by ugie1028
Why is Zimmerman on trial again?

Social pressure. Appeasement. And I've read that certain people in the prosecutors office
are planning to run for public office soon. I don't remember which ones. If anyone wants,
they can google around and figure it out ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
BOOM! Lead Detective Serino just sealed the case for the DEFENSE.

He stated that Martins father denied it was Martins voice.

The Prosecution laughed and said that Zimmerman denied it was his own voice.

Serino then stated that ZImmermans words were ... "It doesn't even sound like me".

WHich is pretty accurate .. no one's voice sounds the same to themselves when they
listen to it on tape. The way my voice sounds in my head is very different from what it
sounds like on tape.

WEAK and lame on the part of the prosecution.

Exactly, there is a big difference saying 'No' to a voice being yours and 'that doesn't sound like me'. Serino just verified GZ didn't recognize the voice as 'sounding' like him vs TM's father saying the voice wasn't TM at all.