Case closed, Zimmerman's a gonner

[RKMBrown]

Guns scare you dont they?

No.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Prosecutor's objections sustained 4-times in a row. GZ lawyer making mistakes, trying to go around the rules.

Oldest legal trick in the book.

When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.

Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.

 

[koshergrl]

why in the f*** would he still scream after he shot him? that's one of the f****** dumbest things I've ever seen posted

Welcome to my nightmare

Why would Zim be screaming for help as he was pulling the trigger?

Because he was getting the shit kicked out of him..... Guns scare you dont they?

And because he didn't want to shoot the kid. That's why he told that one guy, who approached, said he was calling 911, and then retreated, "no just help me". He wanted him to pull Martin off.

But that asshole left and went into his house, and then heard a gunshot.

That's what happens when pansy asses won't help a person getting the shit kicked out of him. People die. Bet you money the guy was a progressive piece of shit, afraid to interfere in a personal dispute between two people of color...he might accidentally help one of them! Omg! Horrors! Better call for state intervention...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Prosecutor's objections sustained 4-times in a row. GZ lawyer making mistakes, trying to go around the rules.

Oldest legal trick in the book.

When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.

Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.

Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.

Laughable, but revealing.

Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.

 

[koshergrl]

They were raised on Perry Mason.

 

[koshergrl]

And Ironsides.

 

[Ernie S.]

So it is boiling down to Repubs vs Dems once again. Don't you ever get tired of it? Try and focus on the case, Ernie not your partisan hackery.

I'm focused on facts that have been made public. Martin's age and complexion do not affect my opinion, yet it is me who is engaged in partisan hackery???????
Come now, Sarah. You're better than that.

The reason for my comment is in bold. I am not bored by facts, I'm bored by the defense version of the facts.

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

 

[koshergrl]

There's no "version" of facts.

A fact is a fact.

But sarhag doesn't know that. She just admitted she is tired of the facts.

Cuz facts are boring.

People who use facts and no theatrics lack panache.

Sarhag expects an 11th hour witness to jump up, go into a trance, and admit that they are the real killer....

a la Perry mason.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm focused on facts that have been made public. Martin's age and complexion do not affect my opinion, yet it is me who is engaged in partisan hackery???????
Come now, Sarah. You're better than that.

The reason for my comment is in bold. I am not bored by facts, I'm bored by the defense version of the facts.

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.

He killed that kid in cold blood.

 

[RKMBrown]

After watching the entire questioning phase, the 911 dispatcher's testimony stood out the most. The defense asked Knoffke (sp?) if Zimmerman was acting as if he had any malice, ill will or spite towards Martin, to which he replied that he didn't, and he further testified that Zimmerman did not seem to be profiling him. The comments "these assholes" or "these punks" did not suggest anything according to the questions by the defense. The prosecution was called for speculation and the Judge sustained, at least three separate instances.

Mrs. Rumph took the stand, and was asked some technical questions, during the questioning, the Prosecutor played a call from August 2011 placed by Zimmerman in regards to a burglary that day. He described the assailant as black. They tried to establish prior intentions based on that August 2011 call in regards to the call on February 26, 2012, to which the Defense called the Prosecution on relevance. The Prosecutor contends that he is trying to establish prior bad acts. The prosecution is trying to call the character of Zimmerman into question, as well as contend that he profiled Martin, and by my count, failed. The only time you call the defendant's character and beliefs into question is if your original argument is debunked or countered effectively.

The prosecution just had one of it main contentions blown out of the water on day one.

The dispatcher is a young white guy talking to another young white guy about "this" punk. I'm also white and I hear anger, I hear profiling of this punk. So what if some of the people in their area like this dispatcher are good with killing "these" punks, does that doesn't make vigilantism ok, or does it? Hell look at GJ and the dispatcher they are getting mad just listening to the tape again. If it was a white girl in a sun dress they would not be talking about her this way.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The reason for my comment is in bold. I am not bored by facts, I'm bored by the defense version of the facts.

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.

He killed that kid in cold blood.

It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.

There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.

 

[25Caliber]

I missed opening statements...who won?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Prosecutor's objections sustained 4-times in a row. GZ lawyer making mistakes, trying to go around the rules.

Oldest legal trick in the book.

When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.

Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.

Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.

Laughable, but revealing.

Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.

Who would ever have guessed that there were "PROFESSIONAL" trial commentators like Ilya posting on the USMB?

Did you get your law degree from Liberty?

 

[RKMBrown]

Why would Zim be screaming for help as he was pulling the trigger?

Because he was getting the shit kicked out of him..... Guns scare you dont they?

And because he didn't want to shoot the kid. That's why he told that one guy, who approached, said he was calling 911, and then retreated, "no just help me". He wanted him to pull Martin off.

But that asshole left and went into his house, and then heard a gunshot.

That's what happens when pansy asses won't help a person getting the shit kicked out of him. People die. Bet you money the guy was a progressive piece of shit, afraid to interfere in a personal dispute between two people of color...he might accidentally help one of them! Omg! Horrors! Better call for state intervention...

>>> "no just help me". He wanted him to pull Martin off.

Still does not sound like a guy who thought he was about to die. Maybe a guy pinned to the ground but not a guy about to die.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The reason for my comment is in bold. I am not bored by facts, I'm bored by the defense version of the facts.

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.

He killed that kid in cold blood.

Defense showed dirt stains on the knees of Trayvon Martin's pants. Sorry, argument invalid. He was beating the shit out him.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oldest legal trick in the book.

When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.

Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.

Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.

Laughable, but revealing.

Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.

Who would ever have guessed that there were "PROFESSIONAL" trial commentators like Ilya posting on the USMB?

Did you get your law degree from Liberty?

Mocking your laughable commentary doesn't make me a trial commentator.

It's more like a commentator on the idiot commentators.

Anyway, I'd stack my law degree up against yours any day, and my experience even more so, chuckles.

But thanks for playing.

Now hurry back with another brilliant insight.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.

He killed that kid in cold blood.

It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.

There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.

Are you a professional crime investigator? Just curious.

 

[Sarah G]

You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?

Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!

He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.

He killed that kid in cold blood.

It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.

There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.

It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.

It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.

Let's see how the rest of the case goes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I missed opening statements...who won?

Judging by the comments in this thread both sides are claiming victory. However that is premature at this juncture. The opening theatrics are usually just saber rattling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After watching the entire questioning phase, the 911 dispatcher's testimony stood out the most. The defense asked Knoffke (sp?) if Zimmerman was acting as if he had any malice, ill will or spite towards Martin, to which he replied that he didn't, and he further testified that Zimmerman did not seem to be profiling him. The comments "these assholes" or "these punks" did not suggest anything according to the questions by the defense. The prosecution was called for speculation and the Judge sustained, at least three separate instances.

Mrs. Rumph took the stand, and was asked some technical questions, during the questioning, the Prosecutor played a call from August 2011 placed by Zimmerman in regards to a burglary that day. He described the assailant as black. They tried to establish prior intentions based on that August 2011 call in regards to the call on February 26, 2012, to which the Defense called the Prosecution on relevance. The Prosecutor contends that he is trying to establish prior bad acts. The prosecution is trying to call the character of Zimmerman into question, as well as contend that he profiled Martin, and by my count, failed. The only time you call the defendant's character and beliefs into question is if your original argument is debunked or countered effectively.

The prosecution just had one of it main contentions blown out of the water on day one.

The dispatcher is a young white guy talking to another young white guy about "this" punk. I'm also white and I hear anger, I hear profiling of this punk. So what if some of the people in their area like this dispatcher are good with killing "these" punks, does that doesn't make vigilantism ok, or does it? Hell look at GJ and the dispatcher they are getting mad just listening to the tape again. If it was a white girl in a sun dress they would not be talking about her this way.

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard you say.

"I'm white therefore my opinion is superior." There was no anger in his voice at any point during the call. Your contention is just as bad as the prosecution's. You are mimicking their contentions act for act. Race is no longer a factor, the defense already debunked any racial proclivities Zimmerman had towards Martin. The dispatcher's race has nothing to do with it either. You have no argument at all. None.