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.
You know what's weird about all of this?
If Trayvon was a white guy, we wouldn't be having any kind of discussion about it on this board.
You know what's weird about all of this?
If Trayvon was a white guy, we wouldn't be having any kind of discussion about it on this board.
If Trayvon was white, rest assured the media never would have referred to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic".
Respectful? You mean by pointing out your repeated claim Martin attacked Zimmerman because he saw a weapon, is made up from whole cloth? Zero evidence. Zero claim even by the prosecution.
You base your entire case on a fabricated condition that simply did not happen. And after being called on it continue to make the same claim over and over. And I am disrespectful for calling you on the fabrication?
The evidence and testimony are clear, Martin attacked Zimmerman, nearly broke his nose and then proceeded to beat his head into the ground. Eye witness testimony places Martin on top and Zimmerman calling for help.
So explain why, if Zimmerman's intent was to go for his gun and then shoot Martin, why was he calling for help? Why was he relieved when told there was eye witness to the event?
Just admit you fabricated the whole Zimmerman went for his gun episode.
I fail to see how even involuntary manslaughter gets proven when the eyewitness testimony backs every thing Zimmerman said and the supposed star witness for the prosecution INSISTS Martin made it home AND THEN CHOSE TO GO BACK.
Untrue...I never said that he attacked him because he SAW a weapon...not once. Its irresponsible on your part to suggest I did. You're a Marine, where is your honor?
I have proved a number of your assumptions incorrect due to the evidence in the case. Most recently in my last post to you. My guess is you are not deep in the trial, have probably done very little research on your own and instead have established an opinion based on some hidden bias and are now lazily regurgitating everything you hear as long as it fits your narrative. This is uninteresting to me.
You never wrote Martin saw the gun when Zimmerman reached for his phone? You never wrote that since Zimmerman's phone wasn't in the pocket that he was probably reaching for his gun? You never wrote that Zimmerman fumbling around in his pocket exposed the gun and made Martin attack him?
I remind you that while this thread is long I am retired I can spend a couple hours quoting you.
I would guess that it will be quite a while before either of the MEs that have testified in this trial will be called to the stand by anyone trying a murder case.
The doctors in this case are a very good point of what I'm talking about with no true narrative for the state. The first doctor they called to the stand walks everyone through the injuries. The next denies the injuries even exist. I'm sitting in deliberations asking which state witness am I suppose to believe, and if they contradict each other I am given doubt.
Umm, when I grab something I do it with my palms toward the object I am grabbing, not my fingernails.
The very definition of grabbing something implies closing your hand around it, therefore your fingertips/fingernails would come into contact with whatever you are grabbing!
grab your wrist.
The pads of your fingers make contact.... The fingernails dont have to make contact or pick up cells when "grabbing". Zimmermans head and face did not show signs of fingernails scratching him.
if you are siting on top of someone and you punch them in the face.... their head will hit the ground. Same with a bitch slap.
so nothing would be under martins fingernails now would it? You get dna under the victims nails since it is a defensive move.
If you want to engage in respectable discussion, I am willing to do so. If all you want to do is engage in personal attacks im not interested. I have a retort to your above post, but I am not going to give you the same attention that I would [MENTION=31215]Oldstyle[/MENTION] who is respectful with his disagreements and at least gives the courtesy of listening.
You are hearing the other side...the other side that does not hate GZ. It could be interesting if you would allow it, but for some reason you have something personal against me.
A quick one to note: He did not stop and go back to his truck...not immediately...what he did do is proceed up the path to now look for an address to give the police a better location, then he headed back down the path towards his truck after he hung up with police (these are his words--not mine...see reenactment video). Trayvon has no way of knowing that he is looking for an address...tray was not privy to the 911 call...to him its just GZ continuing to follow him after he had actually ran away.
This is supported by the 911 call...the reenactment video and the timestamp of the phone call and when he hung up with 911. In this case, it is your assumption that is not supported by the evidence...you are going by what you have heard....look at the tapes yourself...I did. I was getting tired of going by what i heard, so I went through it all myself and kept the links to support my opinion.
So answer me this, 25...
If Zimmerman has indeed lost sight of Martin and is headed back to his SUV? Why does Martin choose to call out to the man he's supposedly afraid of from the safety of the darkness? Why doesn't Martin simply let Zimmerman continue to walk back to his truck? He doesn't have to do or say anything if he's REALLY afraid. Could it be that Martin now has gotten a better look at the man who was in the SUV and has decided that he's not a big imposing guy but a skinny little guy? Could it be that Martin decided at that point that he's not going to take any shit from someone who looks as wimpy as George Zimmerman did? That Martin decided to step from the shadows with his "You got a problem?" challenge?
Excellent points...I agree with your above post 100% and have said the same thing...you have it pegged pretty well. Its speculation, but it is logical reasoning based on what we know. GZ was in retreat and trayvon called him out...in hindsight he should not have....I wish the poor kid would have just went home.
i also do not believe that Trayvon was scared of GZ. That does not make logical sense. I think that he had sized GZ up and that GZ looked like someone he could take if he needed to. GZ is not an intimidating looking person. I dont believe tray was scared of him.
I believe that Trayvon was IRRITATED with him for following him in the dark and rain (as i would be if someone was following me in the dark) and that when he ran up the path towards the homestretch of the condo he became MORE irritated that GZ was now following him on foot. Even though GZ may have been looking for an address...Trayvon did not know that. So a person who has become increasingly irritated at this person continuing to follow him was now going to say something to him. He did by saying "Do you have a problem" and the rest is history.
I personally think that if you are going to exercise your right to follow in the dark and rain, then you have some moral responsibility to at least identify yourself when the situation escalates. Does he have to? No. Is it illegal not to? No. IMO...At some point you have to distinguish yourself to the followee from being a concerned citizen and just some creep following a teenager. I believe this responsibility is increased when you are carrying a concealed weapon...I believe you have the moral responsibility to defuse a situation that has clearly escalated. I can honestly say that I would have and I have in other situations when teens were suspiciously walking around the neighborhood at night.
I also believe that based on the evidence presented so far and how its been presented by the prosecution that a not guilty verdict is imminent. I just dont think the prosecution has put on a good case. I think they overcharged at M2 because of political and national protest pressure. As a result, their burden of proof is too great for the case they were prepared to make. Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter) would have been the more appropriate charge, IMO. The prosecution has went from not even arresting the guy to charging him with M2? Big mistake and against the advice of their own lead investigator on the case (Chris Serino), who suggested Invol Manslaughter instead. He has coincidentally been demoted in the time since although im not completely sure why.
IMO, the prosecution has passed the buck and pressure to 6 female jurors. They thought the pressure would be off of them for at least arresting and charging him and on the jurors to convict...like the jurors will ultimately be blamed if he gets off...not the prosecution. That is weak and disgraceful, imo.
From what I've seen from George Zimmerman I find it highly doubtful that Zimmerman EVER wanted to get close to Trayvon Martin. I think it was always his intention to follow Trayvon Martin at a distance. As a matter of fact I get the impression that if he'd seen Martin coming towards him from a distance that Zimmerman would have likely retreated. This is not a "ballsy" man.
Having been hit in the head with a crowbar, a baseball bat, fists, and having had my head whacked into concrete myself..I have a real good appreciation for how much punishment a head can take.
First hand.
Perhaps, all of those alleged hits has you failing to grasp the simplistic nature of head trauma.
Or..
It proves that all that "head trauma" isn't fatal and Ol' Zimmerman wasn't exposed to lethal force.
I see this thread is still full of people flexing their digital bravado.
Too bad
You missed the interviews and the video tour of the scene? Zimmerman has testified already. He shouldn't take the stand and get badgered by the prosecutors.If all the state has to argue is ill will, spite and Zimmerman has bad breath this case has long been lost.
But I still want to hear Zimmerman say he was defending himself and was hit first before I find him not guilty of murder.
Then maybe he should...and show them up again as the incompetent buffoons they have proven themselves to be. What stupid lawyer would put that idiot Dr. Bao on the stand without subjecting him to mock cross-examination and instructions to NOT try to repeatedly define "opinion" and "fact" to a brilliant defense lawyer...and certainly NOT to say that he changes his opinion every hour...and to bring his own notes into the courtroom without sharing them with both sides first. THAT was the biggest mistake I have seen them make. It literally negated the impact of Trayvon's mother's effective testimony.
I think the prosecution has brought in DNA testing in an attempt to prove certain things could not have happened as Zimmerman claims them to have...like trying to prove that Trayvon never touched the gun......<snip>....
I have done work for the innocence project for almost 20 years.
Uh, hate to inform you of this but every one of those cases involves THE DEFENDANTS and not ONE of them involves the prosecution using DNA to help a defendant in a criminal case.
Respectfully, this case IS NOT a who done it and no one's identity is at issue in this case.
Everyone that you posted above, EVERY ONE involves freeing someone based ON A WRONG IDENTITY.
Hate to break it to you this late in the game but Zimmerman IS NOT DENYING he is the man that shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
So how does your post above with all those names on it have anything to do with it and have anything to do with the guilt of innocence in this case which involves NOT a who done it and an issue of identity but self defense?
On that issue, I think that the jury will remember that Zimmerman said he thought that Trayvon was reaching for the gun. He didn't say that he ever touched it.
Lack of DNA doesn't prove someone didn't touch something anyway.
