The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by crazyewok

 

No agenda, just a belief based on the available information that Zimmerman is guilty. Whether a jury will see it my way is another matter entirely.

Anyway, here's O Mara, the guy who is paid to defend liars.

Biased much?

Anyway everyone is entiled to a defence.

reply to post by beatbox

If you had watched the trial, you would have gotten the information on the injuries stating ...

- Eyewitness saw Zimmerman being repeatedly beat upon by Martin, who was on top.

- Forensic analysis stating that his head did indeed show the irregular indents of the concrete that his head had been slammed against.

- That he had numerous lumps and bruises and cuts from the beating.

- That his head had been slammed at least six times (forensic evidence) and that not all blows will show.

And, if you had watched the trial, you'd also know that Zimmermans life didn't actually have to be in danger, he only had to have reasonable assumption that it was. And having your head smashed into the concrete is absolutely reasonable assumption of a life endangering event.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by beatbox
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

How is that? He has a bloody nose...it sure doesn't look like he had his head smashed into the pavement 20-25 times...looks like trayvon was fighting for his life.

His #&!*ing nose is practically at a 90 degree angle... Do I need to go dig up the surveillance cam photos from the station that show the fresh injuries to the back of his head too? Or will you dismiss those as well? My guess is the latter. You would have bothered to look them up yourself if it was justice you were concerned about.

Would you not fight for your life if you were in trayvon's shoes and seen the gun?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
O Mara is stating that you can't connect the state's dots to decide your verdict, but it's okay to do his dot-to-dot picture and take it as accurately representative of what happened.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So no legitimate arguments there, i present facts and you basically whine.

Travon did nothing then, there was absolutely no reason to follow him and escalate the situation, Travon WAS a child regardless of what you want to believe. The laws are different as they apply to Travon, he can not be held responsible for his actions completely. Zimmerman should have known better and de-escalated or not even created the situation to start with. Zimmerman had no serious injuries and basically got as much as a bandaid and somehow claims his life was threatened by a CHILD.

Sorry but there is no legitimate defense, the prosecuter may have been completely inept but there is no way Zimmerman should get anything but manslaughter.

edit on 11-7-2013 by inquisitive1977 because: (no reason given)

This "child", according to a prosecution witness, confronted the individual following him, and then, according to other witnesses, wound up on top of him in a fight..

The above sentence establishes most of what you have posted as garbage for starters. It also provides grounds for self-defense, particularly when one takes into account the injuries GZ sustained. Perhaps you should actually follow the evidence presented in the courtroom, rather than relying on emotions to determine a man's innocence or guilt.

You are, in effect, convicting the man without taking into consideration the evidence. What should one call that? Justice? Or would that actually be an Injustice?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by beatbox

 

If you had watched the trial, you would have gotten the information on the injuries stating ...

- Eyewitness saw Zimmerman being repeatedly beat upon by Martin, who was on top.

- Forensic analysis stating that his head did indeed show the irregular indents of the concrete that his head had been slammed against.

- That he had numerous lumps and bruises and cuts from the beating.

- That his head had been slammed at least six times (forensic evidence) and that not all blows will show.

And, if you had watched the trial, you'd also know that Zimmermans life didn't actually have to be in danger, he only had to have reasonable assumption that it was. And having your head smashed into the concrete is absolutely reasonable assumption of a life endangering event.

Thank you...

reply to post by crazyewok


I've not seen your views on the case deviating much. Pot, kettle, black, perhaps?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
So, when Trayvon's hands have been holding this bloodied head, why are the blood flow trails not even slightly interrupted by the vigorous movement going on?

Why would the blood flows be interrupted? You assume Martins hands were on the back of Zimmermans head. that's not possible because then Martin would be slamming his own hands into the cement. Not only that, but when Zimmerman was standing, the blood was free flowing and would have run over any previous 'interruptions'. But like I said, there wouldn't have been any because then Martin would have been slamming his own hands into the cement. More likely, he was holding onto the sides or pushing from the front. IMHO

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I've not seen your views on the case deviating much. Pot, kettle, black, perhaps?

My view is that its too murky to make a clear decisoin

Hence reasonble doubt.

I dont know if he is guilty or not. There is not enough information from either side. So reasonble doubt applies.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Which eyewitness? There was only supposed to be one person who claims to have saw anything resembling a distinctive fight.

reply to post by crazyewok


It's not murky when you have a holistic view of the events, rather than focussing on the moment of the gunshot..

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Hahaha thats exactly what came to mind

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Eyewitness John Good saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Martin was doing the 'ground and pound' on Zimmerman. That's in sworn court testimony. You'll have to go google it on youtube or something if you want to watch it. I'm sure someone has put it up by now ....

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It's not murky when you have a holistic view of the events, rather than focussing on the moment of the gunshot..

And your not supposed to do that in a court of law.

You are only meant to take the facts that wre presented to you. You are not meant to presume or make assumptions of your own.

We keep telling you that.

NVM must have lost my router for a minute

Granted - head wounds bleed a lot but come on, if those weenie little wounds are still bleeding down his head (as you see in the photo) the next day? Hmmm...

Keeping that in mind I’m perplexed why GZ would: 1) Go around without his wounds covered - or - 2) Remove the bandage leaving the wound uncovered long enough to re-open and/or re-bleed and then wait for the blood to dry for the photo op... And all without a motive.

peace

reply to post by beatbox

Would you not fight for your life if you were in trayvon's shoes and seen the gun?

If Zimmerman had the gun out then Trayvon would have never attacked him. Would you walk up and punch a guy who has a gun in his hand?

Trayvon had no idea Zimmerman was armed when he attacked. He gambled and lost. The moral of the story is when you feel like a tough guy and decide to use violence, think twice before you attack someone because you never know who has a gun.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It's not murky when you have a holistic view of the events, rather than focussing on the moment of the gunshot..

A "holistic" view of events?

I'm curious... How much faith would you put in a holistic approach if it was you on the stand?

Defense is putting up a chart showing the 'Murder 2 burden of proof' and how you have to be absolutely sure of guilt otherwise you have to find 'not guilty' if there is even a smidgen of reasonable doubt.

It's a FANTASTIC chart. I wish I could post it here.

There can be NO DOUBT when you find someone guilty of Murder 2. None.

The chart does a fantastic job of showing it.

And now he's putting up a chart showing Self Defense burden of proof.

It's the exact opposite of the 'burden of proof' chart. You must assume that Zimmerman is innocent and that he was acting in self defense. You must be absolutely sure that he didn't in order to find him guilty. Even if you doubt it just a little bit, you still must find him innocent.

Another awesome chart. I wish I could post them here ....

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I was in jail for defending myself against an attacker in my ex-g/fs home, and who had grabbed hold of an empty beer bottle because he couldn't fight with his fists. If he'd been quicker off the floor, he might have got a chance to use it, but after my kick to his jaw stunned him, I didn't finish him off, just in case. I showed restraint. It doesn't look like it even entered Zimmerman's head to do the same to an unarmed teen.

edit on 12-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you were the victim, why did you go to jail? Not the whole story?