George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Cowman]

Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What are you saying?

It wasn't something racist, was it?

It wasn't... "black people are prone to violence", was it?

I'm sure there are no crime stats to back up that claim.....

So, is that your claim? Black people are prone to violence? Stand by it dude. Provide those crime stats and show everybody where you stand.

Crime rates are the same across neighborhoods regardless of the racial percentages in each neighborhood? Show me.

 

[The Infidel]

Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.

Why....? Im enjoying watching you make an ass of yourself

 

[Cowman]

I'm sure there are no crime stats to back up that claim.....

So, is that your claim? Black people are prone to violence? Stand by it dude. Provide those crime stats and show everybody where you stand.

Crime rates are the same across neighborhoods regardless of the racial percentages in each neighborhood? Show me.

Was it your claim that black people are more prone to violence? You seem to be skirting around the issue. I'm not the one offering stats, you are. Post them to bolster your claim. Come on man, if you get COLD HARD NUMBERS that black people are savage beasts more prone to violence than the fairer race, who can refute it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

• 90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
• 90.802 Hearsay rule.
• 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
• 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.

My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:

1. Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4. Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not? If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury? (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

Some hearsay evidence is permissible, some isn't. Ultimately, it comes down to how the judge feels about it at the moment. Under the circumstances, the girlfriend will probably be able to testify about the phone call and what she heard, because that is direct knowledge. my guess is she will also be able to testify about what Martin told her was happening, even though it is hearsay, because they will be able to justify it under the excited utterance exception. Additionally, hearsay evidence is generally allowed in a case where the person who made the statement is unavailable.

I expect she'll be able to testify to what she herself heard, but I would be stunned if the defense lawyer wasn't able to make mincemeat out of her credibility based on the facts that a) she has no proof that what she's saying is true, and b) she's got a powerful motivation for lying and wanting revenge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, is that your claim? Black people are prone to violence? Stand by it dude. Provide those crime stats and show everybody where you stand.

Crime rates are the same across neighborhoods regardless of the racial percentages in each neighborhood? Show me.

Was it your claim that black people are more prone to violence? You seem to be skirting around the issue. I'm not the one offering stats, you are. Post them to bolster your claim. Come on man, if you get COLD HARD NUMBERS that black people are savage beasts more prone to violence than the fairer race, who can refute it?

Was it your claim that black people are more prone to violence?

Was it? Where? Link?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Assuming this none quoted response was to my questions.



So make the claim their is proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman, yet when asked to cite such proof you give - well - nothing.

The fact is that there is location evidence (descriptions based on phone calls, the truck, the event site), there is phone evidence (dispatcher, girlfriend, 991 calls) - but the fact is there is NO EVIDENCE that has been presented to the public at to who attacked who exactly during that critical 60 seconds (or so) between the end of the girlfriends call and the 991 time stamp of the firearm being discharged.

Your claims about Martin's (supposed) actions are just unsubstantiated bias (either for Zimmerman or against Martin) and not supported by any facts.



>>>>

Only Zimmerman & Martin were there, for some reason the State charged 2nd degree, I doubt it was on a whim.

if they had compelling evidence, they would have prewsented it at the bail hearing.

I know...I know...."they dont want to let the defense know what they have"

News flash for all of you that only know about the courts based on what you see on TV drama's....

If a DA has compelling evidence that a potential defendant has commited murder and had no concern for human life (as is a second degree murder charge)....they would lose their jobs as a DA if they did not present it in a bail hearing.

Why?

Becuase a bail hearing is used by a judge to determine if the defendant is a threat to society. Compelling evidence would show exactly that.

There is not a DA in this country that would not present it at a bail hearing.

Also, the prosecution is prohibited by law from having any secrets or surprises from the defense. They don't have the ability legally to "not let the defense know what they have". They're required to disclose all evidence in their possession to the defense prior to trial, and can be disbarred and criminally charged if they don't. I believe all of this falls under some obscure little legal rule referred to as the "Fifth Amendment to the Constitution".

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.

True story.

No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".

 

[Cowman]

You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.

True story.

No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".

I agree completely. That post was obvious sarcasm. At least obvious to the regular trolls on the forum I was addressing. I was mirroring their behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.

True story.

No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".

I agree completely. That post was obvious sarcasm. At least obvious to the regular trolls on the forum I was addressing. I was mirroring their behavior.

On this board, your post is not obviously sarcasm.

Whether it was sarcastic or not, it was utterly inappropriate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually at this point in time there is no evidence of that critical time between the end of the girlfriends call and the time stamp for the gunshot from the 911 tapes that would indicate who was the aggressive thug.

If you have some evidence to fill in that time, please feel free to share. Right now we have a Neighborhood Watch member calling in a report (a responsible thing to do) and we have a youth who getting stared at by an unknown man does the responsible thing and runs away showing no "thugism".

So go ahead fill in that missing time frame for us.



>>>>

At this point in time it sounds like Martin jumped Zimmerman which ended up being the reason for Martin's death.

Really, what evidence supports that?

Because, at this point, the alternative explanation is that Zimmerman jumped Martin and attacked him with the back of his head, which is really stupid, considering he had a gun.

Really, what eye witness has made claim to seeing the start of hostilities? (Not someone that saw them together on the ground after hostilities started, but someone that saw the beginning.)

Maybe Martin actually had the gun, and Zimmerman was so confused by the fight he accidentally claimed it was his.

What evidence exists for the time from the end of the girlfriends call when we know both were still standing (approximately 19:16) and the sound of the gunshot sync'd to the 911 call?

What "evidence" please be specific.

What evidence do we need?

What we have right now is Zimmerman saying that Martin ran and Zimmerman followed.

You complain about a lack of evidence, and then make up stuff?

Wait, you also insist that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, even though he wasn't. Making stuff up is what you do.

Zimmerman's case is looking pretty good so far other then the fantasy's that some are trying to push here.

I agree Zimmerman's case looks good. However that is based on lack of evidence not affirmative evidence to support his claim that Martin jumped him. The fact is that there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't jump Martin.

How do you explain the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head if a guy with a gun attacked a kid with Skittles?

The problem here is not the lack of evidence to support Zimmerman's story, the problem is the lack of evidence to disprove it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove Martin attacked him. The state has to prove he attacked Martin, that he did so with malice, and that he was never in any danger. Most people who pretend to understand the law would know that, and not try to force an innocent person to prove that he didn't do something. This isn't France, the presumption lies with the defendant, not the state.

I am all for letting the court clear Zimmerman, I sure hope that they do as I like the Stand your Ground law, but we will see how it goes.

You realize that if Zimmerman attacked Martin, under Stand Your Ground he would have been perfectly enabled to stand his ground and to use force against Zimmerman, if that was the case.


>>>>

You realize that you are an idiot.

 

[The Infidel]

No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".

I agree completely. That post was obvious sarcasm. At least obvious to the regular trolls on the forum I was addressing. I was mirroring their behavior.

On this board, your post is not obviously sarcasm.

Whether it was sarcastic or not, it was utterly inappropriate.

Cow turd cant help himself....he is pathetic if ya ask me.

 

[Bigfoot]

Really, what evidence supports that?



Really, what eye witness has made claim to seeing the start of hostilities? (Not someone that saw them together on the ground after hostilities started, but someone that saw the beginning.)



What evidence exists for the time from the end of the girlfriends call when we know both were still standing (approximately 19:16) and the sound of the gunshot sync'd to the 911 call?




What "evidence" please be specific.

What we have right now is Zimmerman saying that Martin ran and Zimmerman followed.




Probably, but I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you say already shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman.




I agree Zimmerman's case looks good. However that is based on lack of evidence not affirmative evidence to support his claim that Martin jumped him. The fact is that there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't jump Martin.



You realize that if Zimmerman attacked Martin, under Stand Your Ground he would have been perfectly enabled to stand his ground and to use force against Zimmerman, if that was the case.


>>>>

The evidence that we have all been discussing in the past dozen or so threads on the subject. Which certainly doesn't bear repeating again, its all right here on this very forum.

I have seen absolutley zero, zip, nada evidence presented on this forum (and I've been following the threads) which proves what happens between the end of the girlfriends call at approximately 19:16 and the 911 time stamped gun shot about 60 seconds later.

How about humoring us and present what evidence covers this time frame.




And further investigation was done and he was charged. Your logic is that because the Sanford police didn't charge him he's innocent, then using your logic then he must be guilty because the state has charged him.



I don't give a rats ass about Obama and Holder. **YOU** said the evidence supports Martin as the attacker. I challenged that for you to show us specifically what evidence exists that differentiates between Zimmerman and Martin as possible "attackers" you you dodge instead of providing this evidence.

The available evidence as of right now supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him.

Cool.

Detail for us what evidence exists during that critical time frame between the end of the girlfriends call and the gun shot which shows who was the aggressor of hostilities.

What I am waiting for is the Corner's report of Martins bullet wound which along with what we already know may be enough for an acquittal.

Let me make a prediction. The Coroner's report will show that Martin was shot at close range with a 9mm in the chest.

Well we already knew that. Please explain how that shows who initiated the hostilities that resulted in Zimmerman and Martin being on the ground in a fight where Zimmerman shot Martin. We already know who shot whom, that will be no great revelation (unless it shows Martin was shot at a distance, then Zimmerman is in deep shit.)


>>>>

LOL. Everyone in these threads has been over all of this stuff so many times. Just because you want to pretend that you haven't is rather amusing.

As far as the Coroner's report the path the bullet took through Martin's body is of importance. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are you would know that or again you are just talking more shit to be amusing or annoying...either way it doesn't matter.

It is difficult to believe that you are stupid so the only conclusion I am drawing from interacting with you is that you are enjoying acting like you don't know what is going on. Or you are acting like you do not know what has already been presented here on this forum in several threads. Either way I will leave it at that you are being amusing. I don't feel like playing your little game when I already know that you are pretending that you don't know what is going on and that you also have a penchant for making stuff up.

 

[Cowman]

No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".

I agree completely. That post was obvious sarcasm. At least obvious to the regular trolls on the forum I was addressing. I was mirroring their behavior.

On this board, your post is not obviously sarcasm.

Whether it was sarcastic or not, it was utterly inappropriate.

Oh fucking please. I was responding to people claiming that any sign of struggle or wounds on the perpetrator is a sign that they probably provoked the attack. It's blame the victim mentality and it's absolutely bullshit. I was throwing their disgusting logic right back at them.

I can't even count the number of times I've been in arguments against conservatives concerning rape and how they think the woman was responsible(at least partly they always say) in part for putting herself in a specific location, wearing a specific outfit or hanging out with certain kinds of people. I'm seeing the same motherfucking thing right here.

 

[sitarro]

Did Zimmerman say tMartin was black to the 9-11 operator before or after he was asked to give a description of Martin?

Why did Zimmerman follow him?

Luissa want a cracker? How many times are you going to repeat that fucking question? Do you know anything about this case at all? Are you just trolling like an imbecile......wait, forget that question, I know the answer.

There had been over 8 break ins in that community in the last few months and Trayvon matched the eye witness description of the people doing the break in. He was walking around near the buildings in an erratic manner talking to himself( the dumb ass "hoodie""style""is intended to mask your identity, give you a badass look in their very small minds) the hood was hiding his bluetooth set. The "hoodie's" other use is to hide a weapon or stolen property.

What science are you using to determine that a 5'9" overweight guy is twice the size of a 6'2",
170 ib guy. Just the reach alone is going to give a 6" 2" guy a huge advantage over someone 5'9". A sucker punch from someone that size is devastating. His twitter account was "@No Limit Nigga"....... his cousin questioned him about punching a bus driver. This "kid" was not the little boy in the football uniform, that was 4 years before, he wasn't on a football team anymore. If he was worried about someone following him in a neighborhood that he didn't live in, why didn't he easily outrun Zimmerman to his Daddy'a girlfriends house and call the police. Martin's death was inevitable with where he was heading in life, it was Zimmerman's bad luck that he was the one to kill him rather than the standard rival gang asshole....... nobody would be talking about it.

 

[MarcATL]

Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?

Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.

No evidence of a black eye, no broken nose, no scars, not even a scratch...pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway.

Does that face look like it was just in the struggle that left him near death?

Is it becoming more clear why Angela Corey didn't need much to come to her conclussion?

The man has been Bullshatting from the beginning...he's a big-time bullshatter.

RWers....where do you stand on the case now?

Are you still buying George Zimmerman's swill hook, line and sinker?

Or are you ready to accept the FACTS of the case as it stands?

What say you?

Hi, you have received -257 reputation points from GHook93.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Lying ASSHOLE! People like you are the reason Blacks across the globe will always be the lower insignificant wild class!

Regards,
GHook93

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[Cowman]

Man, based on some of the explosive negative comments I've received from GHook93... I have no reason to question the validity of that.

 

[Ravi]

Every law has a percentage of non-compliance which evades prosectution.

The nature of man made law.

Yes, but laws should be written to protect the innocent. This law is poorly written.

Your ignorance is both astounding AND arrogant.

If you were ever to be physically attacked and found it within your means to grab a weapon to defend yourself, and in the process you managed to foil the attacker's efforts to maim or kill you, you'd probably feel some sense of relief.

And if you then were faced with the prospect of getting prosecuted for having caused the death of your attacker, you'd probably feel a bit offended and think "I SHOULD be allowed to use even deadly physical force to fend off an attack that seems hell bent on causing my death!"

Well, HOW do cops and prosecutors and judges and juries figure out whether or not YOUR behavior fit within the bounds of what the law allows?

Holy shit, sometimes there was nobody else around. Sometimes the "evidence" that remains is ambiguous and your word may not be "good enough" standing alone to convince folks that you legitimately felt yourself to be in mortal peril.

So, the laws get written in a way that permits lots of factors to be considered.

YOUR criticism of the allegedly "poor" draftsmanship of the law notwithstanding, it's been doing its job pretty well for a long time.

Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

You, in your infinite wisdom, have judge Martin guilty of launching an attack when we know no such thing.

There is already a right to self defense. There should not be a right to kill someone that is unarmed and apparently doing nothing wrong with out scrutiny. Even the cops in Florida, for the most part, were against this law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The evidence that we have all been discussing in the past dozen or so threads on the subject. Which certainly doesn't bear repeating again, its all right here on this very forum.

I have seen absolutley zero, zip, nada evidence presented on this forum (and I've been following the threads) which proves what happens between the end of the girlfriends call at approximately 19:16 and the 911 time stamped gun shot about 60 seconds later.

How about humoring us and present what evidence covers this time frame.




And further investigation was done and he was charged. Your logic is that because the Sanford police didn't charge him he's innocent, then using your logic then he must be guilty because the state has charged him.



I don't give a rats ass about Obama and Holder. **YOU** said the evidence supports Martin as the attacker. I challenged that for you to show us specifically what evidence exists that differentiates between Zimmerman and Martin as possible "attackers" you you dodge instead of providing this evidence.




Cool.

Detail for us what evidence exists during that critical time frame between the end of the girlfriends call and the gun shot which shows who was the aggressor of hostilities.

What I am waiting for is the Corner's report of Martins bullet wound which along with what we already know may be enough for an acquittal.

Let me make a prediction. The Coroner's report will show that Martin was shot at close range with a 9mm in the chest.

Well we already knew that. Please explain how that shows who initiated the hostilities that resulted in Zimmerman and Martin being on the ground in a fight where Zimmerman shot Martin. We already know who shot whom, that will be no great revelation (unless it shows Martin was shot at a distance, then Zimmerman is in deep shit.)


>>>>

LOL. Everyone in these threads has been over all of this stuff so many times. Just because you want to pretend that you haven't is rather amusing.

Again your lack of ability to backup your claim is telling.

So far there has been no evidence to show exactly what happened between the end of the girlfriends call and the shot being fired.

As far as the Coroner's report the path the bullet took through Martin's body is of importance. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are you would know that or again you are just talking more shit to be amusing or annoying...either way it doesn't matter.

Of course the Coroner's report will be an important piece of evidence, but will not show who started the fight, it will ONLY show that proximity of the firearm at discharge and the path of the bullet through the body.

It does not show who started the fight.

It is difficult to believe that you are stupid so the only conclusion I am drawing from interacting with you is that you are enjoying acting like you don't know what is going on. Or you are acting like you do not know what has already been presented here on this forum in several threads. Either way I will leave it at that you are being amusing. I don't feel like playing your little game when I already know that you are pretending that you don't know what is going on and that you also have a penchant for making stuff up.

It is difficult to believe that some people make determination of guilt or innocence based on preconceive bias thereby determining the outcome of the case and then only seeing the events in the manner they wish while ignoring other possibilities.

Lack of evidence of that critical time frame may well result in the need for a non guilty verdict based on burden of proof and presumption of innocence. That does not mean alternate possibilities don't exist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

At this point in time it sounds like Martin jumped Zimmerman which ended up being the reason for Martin's death.

Really, what evidence supports that?

Because, at this point, the alternative explanation is that Zimmerman jumped Martin and attacked him with the back of his head, which is really stupid, considering he had a gun.

Maybe Martin actually had the gun, and Zimmerman was so confused by the fight he accidentally claimed it was his.

You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.

You complain about a lack of evidence, and then make up stuff?

Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The fact remains is the only description of the happened it from the man charged with Murder 2 (which is still an overreach IMHO).

I'm not arguing that the alternate scenario is true, only that it is a scenario that fits with the known facts not based on Zimmerman's self serving story.

Could it have happened? Yes. Would the State have to prove it? Yes. Can they prove it? Probably not.

Wait, you also insist that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, even though he wasn't. Making stuff up is what you do.

Zimmerman was told by the Sanford Police Department in NW training materials NOT to physically inject themselves into situations.

How do you explain the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head if a guy with a gun attacked a kid with Skittles?

It's possible Martin attacked Zimmerman, true - never said it wasn't.

On the other hand it's possible Zimmerman grabbed and attempted to detain Martin if he tried to leave the situation for a second time (first being leaving the truck area) and that Martin responding the the assault and unlawful detention actions of Zimmerman. Martin may have fought back, which under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, he would be fully justified in doing.

Right now there is no evidence to support either version, but under burden of proof and presumption of innocence, Zimmerman would still be found not guilty.

The problem here is not the lack of evidence to support Zimmerman's story, the problem is the lack of evidence to disprove it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove Martin attacked him. The state has to prove he attacked Martin, that he did so with malice, and that he was never in any danger. Most people who pretend to understand the law would know that, and not try to force an innocent person to prove that he didn't do something. This isn't France, the presumption lies with the defendant, not the state.

Exactly what I've been saying. Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.

However lack of evidence does not support a guilty verdict, it only supports a non guilty verdict.

I am all for letting the court clear Zimmerman, I sure hope that they do as I like the Stand your Ground law, but we will see how it goes.

You realize that if Zimmerman attacked Martin, under Stand Your Ground he would have been perfectly enabled to stand his ground and to use force against Zimmerman, if that was the case.


>>>>

You realize that you are an idiot.

So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?


>>>>