Case closed, Zimmerman's a gonner

[squeeze berry]

Actually, it's going to work like this.

these six chicks are going to look at this fat slug loser, realized he killed a kid and he's not worth having a race riot over.

Ahh......the oh so tolerant left! NOT~!

NOt really from the left.

I'm a pragmatist.

George ZImmerman is a slug. the world will not be diminished by sending him to jail.

Avoiding a race riot and disuading the next asshole who thinks he's The Punisher from shooting someone will save lives.

Works for me.

what a sick fuck ^

 

[koshergrl]

He's just a common liar.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, it's going to work like this.

these six chicks are going to look at this fat slug loser, realized he killed a kid and he's not worth having a race riot over.

Ahh......the oh so tolerant left! NOT~!

NOt really from the left.

I'm a pragmatist.

George ZImmerman is a slug. the world will not be diminished by sending him to jail.

Avoiding a race riot and disuading the next asshole who thinks he's The Punisher from shooting someone will save lives.

Works for me.

You ? a pragmatist ?

 

[Sunshine]

Ahh......the oh so tolerant left! NOT~!

NOt really from the left.

I'm a pragmatist.

George ZImmerman is a slug. the world will not be diminished by sending him to jail.

Avoiding a race riot and disuading the next asshole who thinks he's The Punisher from shooting someone will save lives.

Works for me.

You ? a pragmatist ?

A 'pragmatist' loser who isn't capable of much more than this:

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of folks talking about things they really have no idea bout.

The judge and jury will do their duty, and we will abide it.

If there are riots (which we all know won't happen), LEO will trundle out the water cannons and cameras.

 

[Cuyo]

This case was over before Zimmerman was arrested.

Zimmerman is going to walk...

The only testimony about the actual incident is going to come from Zimmerman.

And that's the whole case...everything else is irrelevant.

"Martin attacked me, I was in fear for my life, I shot him once in self defense."


And the defenders say "but...but...but...Zimmerman followed Martin..."

So what?

It's not illegal to follow someone.

If Martin was in fear...why didn't he call the police?

He had a cell phone...he was on it talking to his girlfriend.

Instead, as Zimmerman will tell it on the stand...Martin ambushed him and attacked him.

And there is no evidence that this is not a true statement.

Case closed, let's all go home.

The burden isn't on the state to prove Zimmerman's claims aren't true. The burden is on Zimmerman to prove they are.

He has the proof, he was attacked, he has the injuries, witness #6 says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "raining down blows like MMA".

The prosecution cannot refute Zimmerman's testimony...there are no witnesses to the initial confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin except Zimmerman.

If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman testimony is false, and they cannot, it's over.

Listen to me: YOU ARE WRONG.

You can believe as you wish, but you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The burden isn't on the state to prove Zimmerman's claims aren't true. The burden is on Zimmerman to prove they are.

He has the proof, he was attacked, he has the injuries, witness #6 says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "raining down blows like MMA".

The prosecution cannot refute Zimmerman's testimony...there are no witnesses to the initial confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin except Zimmerman.

If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman testimony is false, and they cannot, it's over.

Listen to me: YOU ARE WRONG.

You can believe as you wish, but you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.

Listen to me.

You are full of shit.

IF you could point to any evidence available to the prosecution which would rebut Zimmerman's account, you'd point to it.

 

[Cuyo]

He has the proof, he was attacked, he has the injuries, witness #6 says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "raining down blows like MMA".

The prosecution cannot refute Zimmerman's testimony...there are no witnesses to the initial confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin except Zimmerman.

If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman testimony is false, and they cannot, it's over.

Listen to me: YOU ARE WRONG.

You can believe as you wish, but you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.

Listen to me.

You are full of shit.

IF you could point to any evidence available to the prosecution which would rebut Zimmerman's account, you'd point to it.

Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.

NOT the case.

THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.

If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.

As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.

You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?

 

[Zarius]

Listen to me: YOU ARE WRONG.

You can believe as you wish, but you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.

Listen to me.

You are full of shit.

IF you could point to any evidence available to the prosecution which would rebut Zimmerman's account, you'd point to it.

Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.

NOT the case.

THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.

If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.

As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.

You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?

You nailed it. If he gets off then any fool can walk up on someone and say to them "what are you doing here?" Then blast them. Like this guy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48YIcVGcq_A]Firefighter Shoots, Kills Neighbor Over Loud Music - YouTube[/ame]

 

[testarosa]

We already covered this in The Fact Thread, but if the defense files prima facie of self defense, they have to show enough that it could be, then the burden indeed shifts to the state to prove that it was not self defense and then prove M2.

The links are all over there.

-Pete and Repeat

 

[testarosa]

Ahh......the oh so tolerant left! NOT~!

NOt really from the left.

I'm a pragmatist.

George ZImmerman is a slug. the world will not be diminished by sending him to jail.

Avoiding a race riot and disuading the next asshole who thinks he's The Punisher from shooting someone will save lives.

Works for me.

what a sick fuck ^

It's Saturday and 5 o'clock somewhere - can I get some of that you're having?

 

[Cuyo]

We already covered this in The Fact Thread, but if the defense files prima facie of self defense, they have to show enough that it could be, then the burden indeed shifts to the state to prove that it was not self defense and then prove M2.

The links are all over there.

Ya know, it did come up over there and I haven't fully looked into it. At what point does it become "accepted" as such or whatever that process is?

I really have to look into that... But to me, even at first glance, it doesn't look like self defense. It looks like he picked a fight, probably emboldened because he had a gun, and shot the kid when he started losing said fight.

-Pete and Repeat

Cute.

 

[squeeze berry]

NOt really from the left.

I'm a pragmatist.

George ZImmerman is a slug. the world will not be diminished by sending him to jail.

Avoiding a race riot and disuading the next asshole who thinks he's The Punisher from shooting someone will save lives.

Works for me.

what a sick fuck ^

It's Saturday and 5 o'clock somewhere - can I get some of that you're having?

my avi is a whiskey sour

maraschino cherry, sour mix with 1/2 tsp of maraschino syrup and a cocktail sword

I use canadian whiskey

 

[testarosa]

We already covered this in The Fact Thread, but if the defense files prima facie of self defense, they have to show enough that it could be, then the burden indeed shifts to the state to prove that it was not self defense and then prove M2.

The links are all over there.

Ya know, it did come up over there and I haven't fully looked into it. At what point does it become "accepted" as such or whatever that process is?

I really have to look into that... But to me, even at first glance, it doesn't look like self defense. It looks like he picked a fight, probably emboldened because he had a gun, and shot the kid when he started losing said fight.

-Pete and Repeat

Cute.

It boils down to this - the defense NEVER has the burden to prove, that's all on the state.

I'll figure out where the links are at some point and tag you.

 

[testarosa]

what a sick fuck ^

It's Saturday and 5 o'clock somewhere - can I get some of that you're having?

my avi is a whiskey sour

maraschino cherry, sour mix with 1/2 tsp of maraschino syrup and a cocktail sword

I use canadian whiskey

Can I get my with Turkey 101?

Cheers!

 

[testarosa]

We already covered this in The Fact Thread, but if the defense files prima facie of self defense, they have to show enough that it could be, then the burden indeed shifts to the state to prove that it was not self defense and then prove M2.

The links are all over there.

-Pete and Repeat

You are a fucking asshole. You jumped into this message board to only talk about trials and opened up a thread on this trial when there were already two going. Now you are telling people not to repeat things on their own threads which have been talked about on yours? Go fuck yourself. Go back to your own stupid thread and discuss your own stupid shit there. Do not tell other people what to do.

Thanks!

You having a good weekend?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the state has to prove Z shot wrongly. But if it comes down to solely taking Z's word, then the state can and will impeach his creditability.

The jury and how it looks at Z is going to determine his fate.

 

[Missourian]

Listen to me: YOU ARE WRONG.

You can believe as you wish, but you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.

Listen to me.

You are full of shit.

IF you could point to any evidence available to the prosecution which would rebut Zimmerman's account, you'd point to it.

Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.

NOT the case.

THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.

If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.

As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.

You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?

You are not listening.

Zimmerman will present his case for self defense.

It will sound something like this:

"I saw suspicious activity, a person unknown to me...the neighborhood watch captain...walking in the dark, in the rain...who seemed to be casing the nearby houses and backyards.

I phoned the police while I kept an eye on this person to make sure he engaged in no criminal activity before the police arrived.

When the person noticed that I was watching their activities, they fled and I lost contact with them.

At that time the police dispatcher, concerned for my safety, informed me that they did not need for me to continue following the person, and that I should move to meet the officers when they arrived.

They asked my address, but as I didn't know the whereabouts of the person I had been following, I didn't want to give that information where it was possible the person I was following could hear my conversation, so I told the dispatcher I would meet the officers near the mailboxes.

On my way to the mailboxes, I walked a circuitous route, inspecting windows and doors of the houses nearby for evidence of damage...as is my normal routine when patrolling the neighborhood.

Suddenly a man stepped out of an alley and began shouting at me.

He was angry, questioning why I was following him.

I tried to explain that I was a member of the neighborhood watch when the man sucker punched me in the face.

I fell backwards trying to escape the man, but he was on top of me punching my face and body, he grabbed my head and was slamming the back of my head into something hard...I could feel blood...

At this point, I was afraid he was going to kill me. I felt like I was going to lose consciousness and he was going to keep bashing my head and there was going to be nothing I could do...I was absolutely in fear for my life. I was screaming for help but no one came...

So I took the only course of action available...it was him or me.

I never wanted to kill him, I'm truly sorry that he is dead, but like I said, it was my last resort, I honestly believe he was going to kill me."

And the evidence backs him up.

He called the police...who calls the police first when they intend to kill someone?

Zimmerman had blunt force injuries, Martin did not.

Two witnesses place Zimmerman on the ground, one places Martin on top of him "raining down blows like MMA"

Zimmerman cooperated with the police, and was not arrested until the story became political and racial.

I believe him...the local police believed...the first prosecutor believed him...and the jury will believe him.

Where is the evidence that refutes his account?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Missourian, all of that matters not a bit.

The women will take upon themselves the character as present of Z, will consider the circumstance, and then ask themselves why he murdered another woman's son.

Stop the masculine-type logic. That is not going to determine this case.

 

[testarosa]

Listen to me.

You are full of shit.

IF you could point to any evidence available to the prosecution which would rebut Zimmerman's account, you'd point to it.

Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.

NOT the case.

THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.

If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.

As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.

You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?

You are not listening.

Zimmerman will present his case for self defense.

It will sound something like this:

"I saw suspicious activity, a person unknown to me...the neighborhood watch captain...walking in the dark, in the rain...who seemed to be casing the nearby houses and backyards.

I phoned the police while I kept an eye on this person to make sure he engaged in no criminal activity before the police arrived.

When the person noticed that I was watching their activities, they fled and I lost contact with them.

At that time the police dispatcher, concerned for my safety, informed me that they did not need for me to continue following the person, and that I should move to meet the officers when they arrived.

They asked my address, but as I didn't know the whereabouts of the person I had been following, I didn't want to give that information where it was possible the person I was following could hear my conversation, so I told the dispatcher I would meet the officers near the mailboxes.

On my way to the mailboxes, I walked a circuitous route, inspecting windows and doors of the houses nearby for evidence of damage.

Suddenly a man stepped out of an alley and began shouting at me.

He was angry, questioning why I was following him.

I tried to explain that I was a member of the neighborhood watch when the man sucker punched me in the face.

I fell backwards trying to escape the man, but he was on top of me punching my face and body, he grabbed my head and was slamming the back of my head into something hard...I could feel blood...

At this point, I was afraid he was going to kill me. I felt like I was going to lose consciousness and he was going to keep bashing my head and there was going to be nothing I could do...I was absolutely in fear for my life. I was screaming for help but no one came...

So I took the only course of action available...it was him or me.

I never wanted to kill him, I'm truly sorry that he is dead, but like I said, it was my last resort, I honestly believe he was going to kill me."

And the evidence backs him up.

He called the police...who calls the police first when they intend to kill someone?

Zimmerman had blunt force injuries, Martin did not.

Two witnesses place Zimmerman on the ground, one places Martin on top of him "raining down blows like MMA"

Zimmerman cooperated with the police, and was not arrested until the story became political and racial.

I believe him...the local police believed...the first prosecutor believed him...and the jury will believe him.

Where is the evidence that refutes his account?

[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] made a really good point about this yesterday. The dispatcher actually "asked Z for assistance" so to speak in the call - where is he? do you see him now? etc. His post is a few pages back on it. I hadn't even thought of it that way.

Incidentally the judge just ruled "no" on voice experts.