Free George Zimmerman

[WorldWatcher]

Wait because you don't have, and won't have, access to the evidence until the trial.

This is the court of public opinion, not the criminal court in Seminole County.

In this court, it's perfectly acceptable to contemplate the issues based on the evidence currently at hand.

Based on the evidence currently in hand, George Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon when he fired his gun and both were completely on the grass.

So why did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon again ... ???

Do you want to answer or do you want to keep avoiding answering.

Just a correction, the evidence at hand is conflicting. Some witness statements are that Martin was on top others have Zimmerman on top at the time of the shooting.

The reality is that we will have to wait for the hearings/trial to see actually what the witnesses have said to the police and what they testify to in court. This testimoney will then either be under-minded or corroborated by autopsy and forensic evidence.

We can't form an absolute conclusion until that time.


>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not the one who thinks that someone's statement about "the larger man" is earth shattering, case turning, front page news and incontestable evidence.

 

[KissMy]

Apparently you're a liar.

"Abuse of the system (repeated neg repping of the same person without cause or positive rep "trading" among users) will not be tolerated. "

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html

um I had a mod tell me directly its not abuse, and IF it was abuse you would have been sanctioned a long time ago, because you have done this very thing. Hell i get one from you just about daily.

Rep abuse IS NOT tolerated on this board, it will be at the moderator or administrators discretion. Having said that, I wouldn't push this issue.

Plasmaball does not follow the rules either with sig line & negs. Pussball squeals like a stuck pig when someone serves him up some of what he has been dishing out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html Attacks on family members will not be tolerated and will be subject to action by an Admin/Mod. Action taken could range from a warning to banning and will be at Admin/Mod discretion. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE, PERIOD.

Please note that direct or implied threats of violence towards another member and/or threats of any action meant to disrupt a member's normal life will be dealt with severely (minimum 10 day ban).

 

[Faun]

Wait because you don't have, and won't have, access to the evidence until the trial.

This is the court of public opinion, not the criminal court in Seminole County.

In this court, it's perfectly acceptable to contemplate the issues based on the evidence currently at hand.

Based on the evidence currently in hand, George Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon when he fired his gun and both were completely on the grass.

So why did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon again ... ???

Do you want to answer or do you want to keep avoiding answering.

Just a correction, the evidence at hand is conflicting. Some witness statements are that Martin was on top others have Zimmerman on top at the time of the shooting.

The reality is that we will have to wait for the hearings/trial to see actually what the witnesses have said to the police and what they testify to in court. This testimoney will then either be under-minded or corroborated by autopsy and forensic evidence.

We can't form an absolute conclusion until that time.


>>>>

I don't know that the statements are conflicting. Some said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman but none of them saw the moment Trayvon was shot. The one who saw the shooting Says Zimmerman was on top, but that was at the time of the shooting. It's entirely possible they are all accurately recalling what they saw. It's possible that Trayvon was on top for much of the fight but then Zimmerman gained the upper hand, got on top, and shot Trayvon.

Regardless, the more salient point she makes is that they were on the grass. I don't believe that conflicts any other eye witness account. I don't believe any eye witness claimed they were fighting on the concrete walkway.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Pic dedicated to all the tools who said that Zimmerman attacked and murdered that f'ing thug. And dedicated to all who ignored the evidence that it indeed was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That f'ing thug was banging his head against the concrete.

And I told ya'll in the OP that Angela Corey was a hag b/c she knew stuff like this but she was on a politically motivated witch hunt.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pic dedicated to all the tools who said that Zimmerman attacked and murdered that f'ing thug. And dedicated to all who ignored the evidence that it indeed was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That f'ing thug was banging his head against the concrete.

And I told ya'll in the OP that Angela Corey was a hag b/c she knew stuff like this but she was on a politically motivated witch hunt.

At this point we don't know who initiated hostilities.

Being injured in a fight is not indicative of who started the hostilities leading to the fight.

As some of us have been saying, assuming who started the hostilities (at this point) is useless until all the evidence is presented. If the state proves that Zimmerman initiate hostilities then that will be critical to their case. On the other hand if they fail to show Zimmerman's actions resulted in the fight, then under the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Until the evidence is presented, we don't know who attacked who.


>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Pic dedicated to all the tools who said that Zimmerman attacked and murdered that f'ing thug. And dedicated to all who ignored the evidence that it indeed was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That f'ing thug was banging his head against the concrete.

And I told ya'll in the OP that Angela Corey was a hag b/c she knew stuff like this but she was on a politically motivated witch hunt.

At this point we don't know who initiated hostilities.

Being injured in a fight is not indicative of who started the hostilities leading to the fight.

As some of us have been saying, assuming who started the hostilities (at this point) is useless until all the evidence is presented. If the state proves that Zimmerman initiate hostilities then that will be critical to their case. On the other hand if they fail to show Zimmerman's actions resulted in the fight, then under the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Until the evidence is presented, we don't know who attacked who.


>>>>

We don't know who initiated. That is precisely the point. And there will be no witness who said someone started it either b/c that witness does not exist. How can GZ be tried for murder if you can't prove he initiated it? However, it has been proven that he was getting his ass beat and that his life was in jeopardy. Self defense is allowed in such a case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pic dedicated to all the tools who said that Zimmerman attacked and murdered that f'ing thug. And dedicated to all who ignored the evidence that it indeed was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That f'ing thug was banging his head against the concrete.

And I told ya'll in the OP that Angela Corey was a hag b/c she knew stuff like this but she was on a politically motivated witch hunt.

At this point we don't know who initiated hostilities.

Being injured in a fight is not indicative of who started the hostilities leading to the fight.

As some of us have been saying, assuming who started the hostilities (at this point) is useless until all the evidence is presented. If the state proves that Zimmerman initiate hostilities then that will be critical to their case. On the other hand if they fail to show Zimmerman's actions resulted in the fight, then under the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Until the evidence is presented, we don't know who attacked who.


>>>>

Yes and if you don't know the benefit of the doubt goes to GZ. Remember, innocent til proven guilty? And there has to be significant evidence for a murder charge that he did initiate it. There's absolutely no excuse for this to be going to trial based on anything I've seen or read.

Might you have missed the emphasized text above?


>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

At this point we don't know who initiated hostilities.

Being injured in a fight is not indicative of who started the hostilities leading to the fight.

As some of us have been saying, assuming who started the hostilities (at this point) is useless until all the evidence is presented. If the state proves that Zimmerman initiate hostilities then that will be critical to their case. On the other hand if they fail to show Zimmerman's actions resulted in the fight, then under the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Until the evidence is presented, we don't know who attacked who.


>>>>

We don't know who initiated. That is precisely the point. And there will be no witness who said someone started it either b/c that witness does not exist. How can GZ be tried for murder if you can't prove he initiated it? However, it has been proven that he was getting his ass beat and that his life was in jeopardy. Self defense is allowed in such a case.

Might you have missed the emphasized text above?


>>>>

I think your holding to your foolish notion that a trial is warranted. The prosecution has made no case to the public as to why this case is warranted and that is BS.

Of course he'll be found not guilty when the proof isn't on the table. That doesn't somehow exonerate the politicians and pundits who have politically charged this scenario with public outcries and cunning behind the scenes. They've already sent a message that political pressure can force a man who was acting in self defense to face a murder trial if enough people cry against him and if enough people in the system work for them.

Ask yourself; was it really fair in a situation in which people on both sides had very strong opinions; was it really fair that the prosecution didn't put their cards on the table and send this to a grand jury? You're basically arguing that there has to be less than probable cause to put a man on trial and that's BS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We don't know who initiated. That is precisely the point. And there will be no witness who said someone started it either b/c that witness does not exist. How can GZ be tried for murder if you can't prove he initiated it? However, it has been proven that he was getting his ass beat and that his life was in jeopardy. Self defense is allowed in such a case.

Might you have missed the emphasized text above?


>>>>

I think your holding to your foolish notion that a trial is warranted. The prosecution has made no case to the public as to why this case is warranted and that is BS.

I don't think it is foolish to call for a full examination of the evidence when someone shoots an unarmed person.

Of course he'll be found not guilty when the proof isn't on the table. That doesn't somehow exonerate the politicians and pundits who have politically charged this scenario with public outcries and cunning behind the scenes. They've already sent a message that political pressure can force a man who was acting in self defense to face a murder trial if enough people cry against him and if enough people in the system work for them.

Charges should be based on the evidence. Period.

Ask yourself; was it really fair in a situation in which people on both sides had very strong opinions; was it really fair that the prosecution didn't put their cards on the table and send this to a grand jury? You're basically arguing that there has to be less than probable cause to put a man on trial and that's BS.

Complain to the Florida Legislature, they are the ones that mandate a Grand Jury only for capital crimes (which this case is not).

However not having a Grand Jury, as I understand it, will actually be an advantage to Zimmerman because without one the defense can request and automatically qualify for a preliminary evidentiary hearing prior to trial where the prosecution will be required to lay out all their evidence to the Judge before it ever goes to trial.


>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Might you have missed the emphasized text above?


>>>>

I think your holding to your foolish notion that a trial is warranted. The prosecution has made no case to the public as to why this case is warranted and that is BS.

I don't think it is foolish to call for a full examination of the evidence when someone shoots an unarmed person.


>>>>

Examination of the evidence; yes. Trial; no. Are you that dense that you don't get that a trial is an accusation with teeth? The prosecution legally has to believe that the defendant is guilty. And they have to legally believe that they can prove it. It's not to be a dog and pony show for the public.

 

[Too Tall]

And your evidence isn't evidence.

It's just rumor and supposition.

Stop kidding yourself ... it's far more significant than that.

It's a precious eye witness account. One I expect who will testify under oath to what she witnessed.

And what she witnessed was that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman were on the concrete. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there isn't a single witness who said they saw them fighting on the concrete walkway.

So what was George Zimmerman's reason for shooting Trayvon again ... ???

Oh, that's right ... you don't want to answer that one.

Perhaps the fight started on the concrete and they rolled a few feet off after Zimmerman had his head smashed on the walkway. He didn't get the laceration on the back of his head that was treated at the scene by EMT's and shown on TV from hitting his head on the grass.

His stated reason for shooting Trayvon was self-defense. Why continue to ask such a stupid question?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think your holding to your foolish notion that a trial is warranted. The prosecution has made no case to the public as to why this case is warranted and that is BS.

I don't think it is foolish to call for a full examination of the evidence when someone shoots an unarmed person.


>>>>

Examination of the evidence; yes. Trial; no. Are you that dense that you don't get that a trial is an accusation with teeth? The prosecution legally has to believe that the defendant is guilty. And they have to legally believe that they can prove it. It's not to be a dog and pony show for the public.

And if the prosecution legally believes a crime was committed and legally believes they can prove it they have an obligation to bring charges against the individual and bring the case before the courts.


>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I don't think it is foolish to call for a full examination of the evidence when someone shoots an unarmed person.


>>>>

Examination of the evidence; yes. Trial; no. Are you that dense that you don't get that a trial is an accusation with teeth? The prosecution legally has to believe that the defendant is guilty. And they have to legally believe that they can prove it. It's not to be a dog and pony show for the public.

And if the prosecution legally believes a crime was committed and legally believes they can prove it they have an obligation to bring charges against the individual and bring the case before the courts.


>>>>

The cops interviewed Zimmerman for like 5 or 6 hours and they recommended no charges. That should tell you what you need to know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Examination of the evidence; yes. Trial; no. Are you that dense that you don't get that a trial is an accusation with teeth? The prosecution legally has to believe that the defendant is guilty. And they have to legally believe that they can prove it. It's not to be a dog and pony show for the public.

And if the prosecution legally believes a crime was committed and legally believes they can prove it they have an obligation to bring charges against the individual and bring the case before the courts.


>>>>

The cops interviewed Zimmerman for like 5 or 6 hours and they recommended no charges. That should tell you what you need to know.

It does...

............ That an investigation started...

.....................It does not mean an investigation was complete.


It takes time to do an autopsy. Time to canvas for witnesses and reinterview. Time to run toxicological tests. To to perform forensic analysis of the audio tapes. Time to obtain detailed phone records. Time to try to piece together conflicting suspect statements and witness statements.

5 to 6 hours would have been a rush to judgment precluding direct evidence at the scene of who initiated hostilities.

Zimmerman may very well be found "not guilty" of a crime, we will have to see after the court reviews ALL the evidence, not just Zimmerman's story from that night.

>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And if the prosecution legally believes a crime was committed and legally believes they can prove it they have an obligation to bring charges against the individual and bring the case before the courts.


>>>>

The cops interviewed Zimmerman for like 5 or 6 hours and they recommended no charges. That should tell you what you need to know.

It does...

............ That an investigation started...

.....................It does not mean an investigation was complete.


It takes time to do an autopsy. Time to canvas for witnesses and reinterview. Time to run toxicological tests. To to perform forensic analysis of the audio tapes. Time to obtain detailed phone records. Time to try to piece together conflicting suspect statements and witness statements.

5 to 6 hours would have been a rush to judgment precluding direct evidence at the scene of who initiated hostilities.

Zimmerman may very well be found "not guilty" of a crime, we will have to see after the court reviews ALL the evidence, not just Zimmerman's story from that night.

>>>>

The cops are the ones that generally recommend charges to the prosecutor. It was their opinion that he had committed no crime or rather that there was no proof of a crime. Don't pretend that this was about some process. There was going to be no charges until this issue was politicized.

And you watch way to much Law And Order or something; the picture of what happened, or rather what was could be proven came together rather quickly. That is why they released GZ with no intention of asking for charges or pursuing the matter further.

 

[BDBoop]

Pic dedicated to all the tools who said that Zimmerman attacked and murdered that f'ing thug. And dedicated to all who ignored the evidence that it indeed was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That f'ing thug was banging his head against the concrete.

And I told ya'll in the OP that Angela Corey was a hag b/c she knew stuff like this but she was on a politically motivated witch hunt.

At this point we don't know who initiated hostilities.

Being injured in a fight is not indicative of who started the hostilities leading to the fight.

As some of us have been saying, assuming who started the hostilities (at this point) is useless until all the evidence is presented. If the state proves that Zimmerman initiate hostilities then that will be critical to their case. On the other hand if they fail to show Zimmerman's actions resulted in the fight, then under the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Until the evidence is presented, we don't know who attacked who.


>>>>

We don't know who initiated. That is precisely the point. And there will be no witness who said someone started it either b/c that witness does not exist. How can GZ be tried for murder if you can't prove he initiated it? However, it has been proven that he was getting his ass beat and that his life was in jeopardy. Self defense is allowed in such a case.

That's what is wonderful about the legal system. ALL of the FACTS will be admitted into evidence, and people such as the girlfriend will be able to testify as to the conversation that occurred when she called. His voice will likely be tested against the screams for help that his mother identified as his, so it will become fact, not allegations.

 

[BDBoop]

And your evidence isn't evidence.

It's just rumor and supposition.

Stop kidding yourself ... it's far more significant than that.

It's a precious eye witness account. One I expect who will testify under oath to what she witnessed.

And what she witnessed was that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman were on the concrete. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there isn't a single witness who said they saw them fighting on the concrete walkway.

So what was George Zimmerman's reason for shooting Trayvon again ... ???

Oh, that's right ... you don't want to answer that one.

Perhaps the fight started on the concrete and they rolled a few feet off after Zimmerman had his head smashed on the walkway. He didn't get the laceration on the back of his head that was treated at the scene by EMT's and shown on TV from hitting his head on the grass.

His stated reason for shooting Trayvon was self-defense. Why continue to ask such a stupid question?

That's his stated reason. There's always a 'stated reason'. Now we could compare that to Trayvon's take on the situation? BUT HE KILLED HIM.

 

[KissMy]

And if the prosecution legally believes a crime was committed and legally believes they can prove it they have an obligation to bring charges against the individual and bring the case before the courts.


>>>>

The cops interviewed Zimmerman for like 5 or 6 hours and they recommended no charges. That should tell you what you need to know.

It does...

............ That an investigation started...

.....................It does not mean an investigation was complete.


It takes time to do an autopsy. Time to canvas for witnesses and reinterview. Time to run toxicological tests. To to perform forensic analysis of the audio tapes. Time to obtain detailed phone records. Time to try to piece together conflicting suspect statements and witness statements.

5 to 6 hours would have been a rush to judgment precluding direct evidence at the scene of who initiated hostilities.

Zimmerman may very well be found "not guilty" of a crime, we will have to see after the court reviews ALL the evidence, not just Zimmerman's story from that night.

>>>>

As I pointed out in this post.

Zimmerman's statements are all the prosecution has to prosecute him with.

Based on witness & evidence released so far the prosecution does not have a case. Zimmerman's problem is that he gave over 5 hours of video taped police interrogation, interview & crime scene reenactment all without a lawyer. It is impossible for anyone innocent to talk that much & not contradict themselves. The prosecution may nail him on that. His inconsistent statements were alluded to by the investigator. Had Zimmerman clammed up & lawyered up immediately after the shooting, he would be free due to witness statements. This is why you should never talk to police.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"]Dont Talk to Police[/ame]

 

[Flagrant.Foul]

Fuck George Zimmerman. He's a wanna be cop.

He had no business sticking his nose in where it had no right to be. There is no basis in fact that justified his views about Trayvon being "suspicious". Dispatch told him not to pursue. He pursued Trayvon anyway, confronted him, and an unarmed teen lay dead in his own back yard.

Stand your ground is the most fucked up law on the planet. It makes getting into a fight legal. It makes it legal to end the fight with a killing.