Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry dear, but my view of the world is very different from yours, and I rather appreciate mine better. I was interested in seeing what she had to say and was not interested in making fun of her or drawing hateful characerizations of her as some choose to do. I saw her as the typical uneducated young person, not by choice but by exposure to a specific culture and pathetic education system. I picked up on the probable truth that she had been thoroughly coached by the prosecution team, but I didn't sense that she was being purposefully dishonest.
And I don't think she hurt the defense's case.
Goes to if I can't have fun in the thread there's no point in showing up.
But if having fun means being unnecessarily cruel. . . . .
That's almost the shootin' match.
There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.
Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.
So he laid down and beat his own head into the concrete.
good fucking god
Right Snook. And she came off as being ignorant. I was just listening to the first part of her testimony and she spoke like a thug. Total gangster chick. Ole Bernie kept saying...OK, OK, Ok after every question as if they practiced it and she was performing. What a disgrace all around.
And this was the prosecution's STAR witness. Sad.
Like a paint job, preparation is extremely important.
Right Snook. And she came off as being ignorant. I was just listening to the first part of her testimony and she spoke like a thug. Total gangster chick. Ole Bernie kept saying...OK, OK, Ok after every question as if they practiced it and she was performing. What a disgrace all around.
And this was the prosecution's STAR witness. Sad.
Like a paint job, preparation is extremely important.
And like a paint job, while it's intended to enhance a sound substructure, the unscrupulous use it to conceal rot and decay.
You were there? You heard the conversation between Zimmerman and his friend?
No, of course not.
Again, which is more reliable: the testimony of the guy who was there or someone who claims he told him something?
The answer is obvious to anyone who isnt trying desperately to save face.
Are we to believe his best friend testifying under oath or you? How bout the jury who are they to believe? They can believe he gave conflicting statements.
He testified to it...defense didnt challenge it. Conflicting statements...it is what it is.
His best friend testified under oath to what GZ told him...are you saying that his best friend lied about it? Did the defense team deny he said it....has GZ denied he said that to his friend? This best friend and US. Air Marshal got up on the stand and lied to hurt his friend? You have quite the imagination.
Zimmerman's "best friend" wrote in his book four months after the incident took place about a conversation that took place during the car ride home from the police station. He didn't record the conversation...he didn't take notes about the conversation...he wrote what he did from his recollections of what was said to him that night. Now think back to a random conversation that you had with someone four months ago. Can you remember it word for word? If you tried to you think it would most likely NOT be word for word? This notion that the recollection of someone else which may very well not be accurate somehow proves that Zimmerman is being dishonest is almost laughable.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
^ that is the STATUTORY provision. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
As AyeCan'tSeeYou just demonstrated in his above [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/7482426-post6883.html ] (his second second link), the charge from the prosecutor tracks that statutory language with a few minor differences.
So the charge is PLAINLY seen to be a charge of something OTHER than "intentional" murder.
That being so, the lesser of manslaughter is available.See the instructions under 782.04(2) at Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2012->Chapter 782 : Online SunshineLesser Included Offenses
SECOND DEGREE (DEPRAVED MIND) MURDER 782.04(2)
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
And, as to the charge of manslaughter, the defense of "justification" IS available. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
To further pursue that thought, and contrary to the ignorance of Gatsby, the manslaughter section of the law provides:
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
* * * *
Wow. How about that. If you HAVE justification, it aint manslaughter, either. SO, manslaughter is an available defense.
Subdivision (3) upon which Gatsby rests his hat is inapplicable to Zimmerman because Zimmerman is not alleged to have acted with culpable negligence under 827.03(2)(b) which says:-- Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I don't think Zimmerman was a babysitter and nobdy said he neglected Trayvon Martin.
Hmmmm...i thought this was interesting...especially now that it appears GZ has been less than truthful about his knowledge of the "Stand Your Ground Law".
"Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[28] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling.[28][29] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed."
~Wiki
Hmmm...think this might have a little to do with him wanting to deny knowledge of the law?...yep throw that in there, George.
Is the "he tried to grab my gun" and said I was "gonna die tonight" making more sense now? Many are supporting someone that might be lying right to their face about some things. I dont like liars...it makes me dig deeper than I really want to.
I know I know...ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO FORGET WHAT YOU LEARNED IN COLLEGE!!! Even if your college professor testifies in your trial that he taught it "extensively" in a class you aced. I know I know...more conjecture and speculation, right?
My argument would be that GZ was punched immediately when Trayvon perceived that the stranger (who never identified himself) relentlessly following him in the dark and rain went reaching for what he thought was a weapon...GZ was punched repeatedly after that because he went reaching for what Trayvon knew was a gun.
Why is GZ feeling the need for his gun? Because he was negligent in continuing up the dark path that the suspect ran away from him on after he was specifically told "we dont need you to do that".
Speculation? Conjecture? Nope its all on tape...I'll take my chances with the jury mulling that over. They can decide for themselves.
"But I swear I was reaching for my phone...honest I was"...was your phone there? Nope. Was your gun there? Yep. No further questions....for now.
Just something to think about. I know its hard...it was hard for me too.
Here's the problem with your scenario, 25. Zimmerman WASN'T "relentlessly following" him. When Martin runs away, he ends up outside the condo where he is staying, which is over a hundred and twenty yards away from the path that Zimmerman took going and returning. That fact was provided by a Prosecution witness, Rachel Jenteal. So if Martin is that far away from Zimmerman...and standing outside of the safety of the condo...how is it not HIS fault that a confrontation takes place? Did he not have to walk all that way back to confront George Zimmerman? If you can explain to me how that confrontation DOES take place unless Martin deliberately returns to initiate it then I'd be all ears.
I am beginning to wonder if a hung jury will be the outcome.
Hmmmm...i thought this was interesting...especially now that it appears GZ has been less than truthful about his knowledge of the "Stand Your Ground Law".
"Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[28] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling.[28][29] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed."
~Wiki
Hmmm...think this might have a little to do with him wanting to deny knowledge of the law?...yep throw that in there, George.
Is the "he tried to grab my gun" and said I was "gonna die tonight" making more sense now? Many are supporting someone that might be lying right to their face about some things. I dont like liars...it makes me dig deeper than I really want to.
I know I know...ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO FORGET WHAT YOU LEARNED IN COLLEGE!!! Even if your college professor testifies in your trial that he taught it "extensively" in a class you aced. I know I know...more conjecture and speculation, right?
My argument would be that GZ was punched immediately when Trayvon perceived that the stranger (who never identified himself) relentlessly following him in the dark and rain went reaching for what he thought was a weapon...GZ was punched repeatedly after that because he went reaching for what Trayvon knew was a gun.
Why is GZ feeling the need for his gun? Because he was negligent in continuing up the dark path that the suspect ran away from him on after he was specifically told "we dont need you to do that".
Speculation? Conjecture? Nope its all on tape...I'll take my chances with the jury mulling that over. They can decide for themselves.
"But I swear I was reaching for my phone...honest I was"...was your phone there? Nope. Was your gun there? Yep. No further questions....for now.
Just something to think about. I know its hard...it was hard for me too.
Here's the problem with your scenario, 25. Zimmerman WASN'T "relentlessly following" him. When Martin runs away, he ends up outside the condo where he is staying, which is over a hundred and twenty yards away from the path that Zimmerman took going and returning. That fact was provided by a Prosecution witness, Rachel Jenteal. So if Martin is that far away from Zimmerman...and standing outside of the safety of the condo...how is it not HIS fault that a confrontation takes place? Did he not have to walk all that way back to confront George Zimmerman? If you can explain to me how that confrontation DOES take place unless Martin deliberately returns to initiate it then I'd be all ears.
What did rachel say that tells you he was at his condo door? My impression of her statements was that she didnt know but that she thought he was near his home, which considering the fact that he has been followed home from the store in the dark and rain...anywhere in that area would be close to home...the courtyard would be close to home.
Not to mention the fact that it seems Rachels statements are in another language and have double meanings...lol.
How well could any of us, without looking it up, put all the events of 9/11 into their proper sequence?
I bet Republicans think Trayvon Martin's mother is a liar when she said it was her son crying for help. That she knows his voice.
That just hate that kid. It's Obama by proxy.
Here's the problem with your scenario, 25. Zimmerman WASN'T "relentlessly following" him. When Martin runs away, he ends up outside the condo where he is staying, which is over a hundred and twenty yards away from the path that Zimmerman took going and returning. That fact was provided by a Prosecution witness, Rachel Jenteal. So if Martin is that far away from Zimmerman...and standing outside of the safety of the condo...how is it not HIS fault that a confrontation takes place? Did he not have to walk all that way back to confront George Zimmerman? If you can explain to me how that confrontation DOES take place unless Martin deliberately returns to initiate it then I'd be all ears.
What did rachel say that tells you he was at his condo door? My impression of her statements was that she didnt know but that she thought he was near his home, which considering the fact that he has been followed home from the store in the dark and rain...anywhere in that area would be close to home...the courtyard would be close to home.
Not to mention the fact that it seems Rachels statements are in another language and have double meanings...lol.
Remind us again of your clairvoyance, as I recall you had a whole story concocted about Zimmerman reaching for either his weapon or phone forcing Martin to attack him. No witness to the event, no evidence of the story you created from whole cloth, but you went on and on for pages reciting that story line.
