Zimmerman Prosecution Imploding, Analysts Say

[Sunshine]

Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch when this happened. He was on his way to the store. If you are all bollixed up with his having mixed martial arts training, then why didn't the prosecution have sparring partners up there to tell the world how good Zimmerman was and how easily they were overpowered? The defense wanted to introduce evidence of Martin's training as a fighter. The judge denied it. The videos are still on You Tube though. Why is Zimmerman's so-called training as a fighter determinative of anything but Martin's training not?

The prosecution has no case. In law school all lawyers learn trial tactics. If you have the facts, argue the facts, if you have the law, argue the law. If you have neither facts nor law, baffle them with bullshit. The prosecution has neither the law nor the facts. He is baffling with bullshit. Find Zimmerman guilty just because, he's white, he's a republican, he said the word "God" on national television, he was carrying a gun on his way to the store. No. he wasn't on his way to the store, he was on patrol as Neighborhood Watch. He hit his wife, he's a child molester, he is just the kind of person to shoot an innocent little black kid. It's on the internet! We all know it's true. It's not true. It's only true if you leave out certain small facts like Zimmerman was never convicted of anything and all charges against him were dropped. It's the kind of BS that's argued when neither the facts nor the law are available.


Trayvon Martin was a drug addict, drug dealer, fighter, burglar, owned burglary tools, found with stolen property and suspended from school. He was so proud of himself he posted pictures of his gun on his facebook page. He was exactly the kind of person who would be casing the complex for some later criminal activity. Zimmerman's instincts were correct.

There is no case. The prosecution knows it has no case. It is trying to prove reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense. That's the baffling with bullshit part. The law doesn't work that way.

As far as black men stealing tube socks or a piece of pizza, I know for a fact that the pizza thief should have spent his life behind bars instead of getting out and committing even more crimes as is what really happened. Last I heard, there was an arrest warrant out for him.

There is nothing left except threaten a riot. Black people riot. They riot when the Lakers win a basketball game, that's what they do. They will riot of Zimmerman is found not guilty. They will have a celebration riot if he's found not guilty. If we are going to have a justice system by riot, admit it. Give absolute license to commit crimes based on skin color.

JoeB131 lives in a ghetto. He has something to worry about.

BTW: That was a good post. + rep when I can.

 

[bripat9643]

[

OJ murdered the two people.
Zimmerman shot Trayvon and killed him. His defense was the he did so in self defense. Which is a legitimate defense. Do you not think he shot Trayvon in self defense?

Nope. Don't believe that for a minute.

Don't believe a guy who was a mixed martial artist and a trained bouncer was going to be in fear for his life from a skinny 17 year old.

Also, there never would have been a confrontation if Zimmerman hadn't broken the guidelines of his own watch and stalked Trayvon to start with.

You dont believe that when a large athletic 17yr old is on top of you punching you and telling you you are going to die tonight that a reasonable person would not be in fear of his life?

It's pointless to ask Joe questions like that because he'll just lie.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

[

I agree that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, nothing more - if that isn't the charge they will have to give a not guilty verdict - Sunshine is right - the verdict is delivered by way of jury, not vigilante justice - you seem to think this is somehow going to be like the Rodney King riots - I beg to differ - Joe.

MS 13 Latino Gangs that run for the cartels are the most formidable gangs in the world. The black community is out of their league and they know it. Which is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson keep referring to George Zimmerman as a white man. They are both afraid of the Mexican Mafia and neither will open their mouth about a Latino. So that is where that is at. - J.

I'm going to ask an honest question here. Do you REALLY think that the Mexican Mafia cares that this guy's mother was Peruvian? Or do you just need to see conspiracies under every bush?

Do I think that Sharpton and Jackson are making a big deal out of this to advance their own agendas? Absolutely. So are is the gun lobby.

I honestly hope there aren't riots if this guy is acquitted. But I would understand if there were.

It's every black parents nightmare that their kid could be shot because a trigger happy cop or homeowner preceived them as a threat. In Trayvon's case, it became real.

Ask yourself the honest question. If Zimmerman were black and Trayvon was white, do you really think we'd be at this point?

Answer me this one, Joe. The Mexican Mafia gives order in Southern California to evict black families and identifies the woman evicted the other day as a "******"... not a single word on news media about it. Not a single statement from the NAACP, AL Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. Not even a PEEP from either of them.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will go after Paul Deen or anyone else who won't fight back if they can make money by accusing them of being a racist.

Where is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jacksons big speech on the Mexican Mafia using term "******"... no where... that's where... does the Mexican Mafia care about the Zimmerman trial? I say they do. Does the Mexican Mafia care about the Black Mob Violence on Latino people inside USA? I say they do.

We'll find out which one of us is right later on.

Did Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson zero in on this Latino man and make it a huge deal in order to gain some attention? Yes, they did. Now they have it. Let's see where it goes from here.

-Jeri

 

[bripat9643]

I did answer your question. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

And if you want to make yourself look silly in every post, that's your business.

But anyway, here's the thing. Either O.J. murdered those two people or he didn't.

Either Zimmerman murdered Trayvon or he didn't.

I have no problem with Hispanics. I have a problem with thugs who shoot black children in the street because they want to prove how tough they are.

We get to find out how really tough they are when they go to prison.

OJ murdered the two people.
Zimmerman shot Trayvon and killed him. His defense was the he did so in self defense. Which is a legitimate defense. Do you not think he shot Trayvon in self defense?

Not the right question, Rabbi. Do he had the legal right to follow Trayvon armed with a gun and not identifying himself as Neighborhood Watch when he was clearly all about it that night? No. I don't believe he did.

Actually, yes he did have that right. He had a concealed carry permit, so carrying a gun was perfectly legal. There's no law that says you can't follow someone. You can call it "stalking," but that doesn't come into play until someone takes out a restraining order on you.

Zimmerman broke no laws. You lynch mob turds keep claiming he broke the law, but that's only because you're desperate imbeciles with no evidence.

 

[Sunshine]

OJ murdered the two people.
Zimmerman shot Trayvon and killed him. His defense was the he did so in self defense. Which is a legitimate defense. Do you not think he shot Trayvon in self defense?

Not the right question, Rabbi. Do he had the legal right to follow Trayvon armed with a gun and not identifying himself as Neighborhood Watch when he was clearly all about it that night? No. I don't believe he did.

Actually, yes he did have that right. He had a concealed carry permit, so carrying a gun was perfectly legal. There's no law that says you can't follow someone. You can call it "stalking," but that doesn't come into play until someone takes out a restraining order on you.

Zimmerman broke no laws. You lynch mob turds keep claiming he broke the law, but that's only because you're desperate imbeciles with no evidence.

Stalking is a repeated, not a one time, offense.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not the right question, Rabbi. Do he had the legal right to follow Trayvon armed with a gun and not identifying himself as Neighborhood Watch when he was clearly all about it that night? No. I don't believe he did.

On the matter of OJ trial. That was an act of cold blooded murder - it was clear that OJ was guilty and the lawyers who got him off are all dead and in hell now - that happened exceptionally fast ( Kardashian - Johnny Cochran both in hell) because they defended a guilty man who murdered a Jew - Ron Goldman. Had it not involved a Jew the Lawyers probably would not have died so quickly but there is a curse for harming a Jew ( as you should know ) so that should serve as a warning to other lawyers in the future. imo.

- Jeri

Did he have the legal right to follow Trayvon? Yes. There's no law against it.
Did he have the right not to identify himself? Yes. He was not part of neighborhood watch for that night.
Did Trayvon have the right to confront Zimmerman and punch him? No. Did he put him in fear of his life? Yes. Was Zimmerman justified in neutralizing that threat? Yes.

You say he was not a part of neighborhood watch that night. Did you listen to the dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher? Zimmerman was told NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN. Why did he ignore the police dispatchers orders to NOT FOLLOW?

Did Trayvon have the right to confront Zimmerman and punch him? Absolutely. If you want to follow people around and play Kojak you should expect it to anger your target. Did Zimmerman have a right to put Trayvon in fear of his life by following him ( with a gun) and not identifying himself but letting this kid wonder who it is? No.

So you see, Rabbi, there are two sides to this story. I do not doubt that Trayvon was a troublemaker and a drug user - still - he wasn't looking for trouble that particular night coming home from store with can of tea and a bag of skittles in his hands. Trouble came looking for him instead. We may not like the law but we all have to abide by it. Zimmerman probably didn't like being told not to follow Trayvon. Had he listened he wouldn't be on trial for murder right now. - Jeri

Zimmerman was not part of the neighborhood watch then. He was on his way to the store. This is fact.
Do you really believe you can punch someone because he followed you once? You need to try that and see where it lands you.
There are not two sides here. There is the truth and the law. Both of them support the supposition that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Only an ill informed moron with an agenda thinks otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

Did he have the legal right to follow Trayvon? Yes. There's no law against it.
Did he have the right not to identify himself? Yes. He was not part of neighborhood watch for that night.
Did Trayvon have the right to confront Zimmerman and punch him? No. Did he put him in fear of his life? Yes. Was Zimmerman justified in neutralizing that threat? Yes.

You say he was not a part of neighborhood watch that night. Did you listen to the dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher? Zimmerman was told NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN. Why did he ignore the police dispatchers orders to NOT FOLLOW?

Did Trayvon have the right to confront Zimmerman and punch him? Absolutely. If you want to follow people around and play Kojak you should expect it to anger your target. Did Zimmerman have a right to put Trayvon in fear of his life by following him ( with a gun) and not identifying himself but letting this kid wonder who it is? No.

So you see, Rabbi, there are two sides to this story. I do not doubt that Trayvon was a troublemaker and a drug user - still - he wasn't looking for trouble that particular night coming home from store with can of tea and a bag of skittles in his hands. Trouble came looking for him instead. We may not like the law but we all have to abide by it. Zimmerman probably didn't like being told not to follow Trayvon. Had he listened he wouldn't be on trial for murder right now. - Jeri

Zimmerman was not part of the neighborhood watch then. He was on his way to the store. This is fact.
Do you really believe you can punch someone because he followed you once? You need to try that and see where it lands you.
There are not two sides here. There is the truth and the law. Both of them support the supposition that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Only an ill informed moron with an agenda thinks otherwise.

I love the way the lynch mob is claiming the following someone is some kind of crime. If that ever comes to pass, this country will be in serious trouble. What's next, will looking at someone wrong become a justification for assault?

 

[The Rabbi]

You say he was not a part of neighborhood watch that night. Did you listen to the dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher? Zimmerman was told NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN. Why did he ignore the police dispatchers orders to NOT FOLLOW?

Did Trayvon have the right to confront Zimmerman and punch him? Absolutely. If you want to follow people around and play Kojak you should expect it to anger your target. Did Zimmerman have a right to put Trayvon in fear of his life by following him ( with a gun) and not identifying himself but letting this kid wonder who it is? No.

So you see, Rabbi, there are two sides to this story. I do not doubt that Trayvon was a troublemaker and a drug user - still - he wasn't looking for trouble that particular night coming home from store with can of tea and a bag of skittles in his hands. Trouble came looking for him instead. We may not like the law but we all have to abide by it. Zimmerman probably didn't like being told not to follow Trayvon. Had he listened he wouldn't be on trial for murder right now. - Jeri

Zimmerman was not part of the neighborhood watch then. He was on his way to the store. This is fact.
Do you really believe you can punch someone because he followed you once? You need to try that and see where it lands you.
There are not two sides here. There is the truth and the law. Both of them support the supposition that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Only an ill informed moron with an agenda thinks otherwise.

I love the way the lynch mob is claiming the following someone is some kind of crime. If that ever comes to pass, this country will be in serious trouble. What's next, will looking at someone wrong become a justification for assault?

Only if the lookee is a member of the protected classes.

 

[PaulS1950]

Zimmerman has a concealed carry permit - you don't get those if you have been convicted of a violent crime or a felony.
Zimmerman was never told "don't follow him" he was told he didn't have to follow him. The cop testified that they appreciate knowing exactly where the suspect is. To do that you have to keep them in view. Zimmerman was unable to keep Martin in view - he lost him and was returning to his vehicle. Martin then violently engaged Zimmerman and had him pinned to the ground assaulting him. Assault is a felony and that gives Zimmerman the right to use deadly force to protect himself.

Those are the facts of record. The facts of record are supported by all the evidence in this case. The only thing that cannot be determined through evidence is whether or not Zimmerman was in fear of his life but it is reasonable to accept his testimony that he was because the rest of his story is backed up by the evidence offered in the case.

Zimmerman was obviously not gunning for Martin - his gun was kept in the holster and concealed until the attack by Martin. In the struggle the gun was spotted by Martin and that is when Zimmerman drew the gun (while laying on his back being beaten) and fired a single shot to stop the beating. I have always been taught that you fire twice and then see if the perp is subdued. If not then you fire twice more. Zimmerman only fired once - enough to get away from his attacker. He used his gun to get away from the attack - not to kill Martin. Martin did die but the shooting was in self defense during the felonious attack by Martin.

This case should never have gone to trial and it should have legally gone to a grand jury first - that mistake is enough to call a mistrial. But the trial is in progress and all the evidence shows it was a justifiable shooting. Zimmerman is not guilty of committing any crime.

The ultimate outcome of this trial will depend on the jury. If he is found not guilty then he is not guilty. If he is found guilty then he is guilty until a higher court rules otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

Zimmerman has a concealed carry permit - you don't get those if you have been convicted of a violent crime or a felony.
Zimmerman was never told "don't follow him" he was told he didn't have to follow him. The cop testified that they appreciate knowing exactly where the suspect is. To do that you have to keep them in view. Zimmerman was unable to keep Martin in view - he lost him and was returning to his vehicle. Martin then violently engaged Zimmerman and had him pinned to the ground assaulting him. Assault is a felony and that gives Zimmerman the right to use deadly force to protect himself.

Those are the facts of record. The facts of record are supported by all the evidence in this case. The only thing that cannot be determined through evidence is whether or not Zimmerman was in fear of his life but it is reasonable to accept his testimony that he was because the rest of his story is backed up by the evidence offered in the case.

Zimmerman was obviously not gunning for Martin - his gun was kept in the holster and concealed until the attack by Martin. In the struggle the gun was spotted by Martin and that is when Zimmerman drew the gun (while laying on his back being beaten) and fired a single shot to stop the beating. I have always been taught that you fire twice and then see if the perp is subdued. If not then you fire twice more. Zimmerman only fired once - enough to get away from his attacker. He used his gun to get away from the attack - not to kill Martin. Martin did die but the shooting was in self defense during the felonious attack by Martin.

This case should never have gone to trial and it should have legally gone to a grand jury first - that mistake is enough to call a mistrial. But the trial is in progress and all the evidence shows it was a justifiable shooting. Zimmerman is not guilty of committing any crime.

The ultimate outcome of this trial will depend on the jury. If he is found not guilty then he is not guilty. If he is found guilty then he is guilty until a higher court rules otherwise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This case was doomed before it ever started.

 

[eagle7_31]

Don't need a court of law to show me that Zimmerman killed this child because he wanted to and not because he had to save his life. His life was never threatened. I don't need a court of law to punish him. No bad deed goes unpunished and I don't believe their will be wide spread rioting either. Protest maybe. I don't plan to do an rioting. 911 calls and the end results convince me that Zimmerman planned from the moment he saw the child to kill him. Zimmerman's own words and he actions and inconsistencies in his words. And Florida's self defense laws is not on his side.

Florida Law on Self Defense : Use of Force

Self Defense in Florida: Deadly and Non-Deadly Force
Self Defense in Florida: When is Non-Deadly Force Allowed?

Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat. If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Self Defense in Florida: When is Deadly Force Allowed?

There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.
Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Depend on what the jury believe what "beyond a reasonable doubts is" My bet is on the jury.

IF the prosecution could prove that, I'm sure they would have. Quit trying to reach a 'politically correct' verdict.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't need a court of law to show me that Zimmerman killed this child because he wanted to and not because he had to save his life. His life was never threatened. I don't need a court of law to punish him. No bad deed goes unpunished and I don't believe their will be wide spread rioting either. Protest maybe. I don't plan to do an rioting. 911 calls and the end results convince me that Zimmerman planned from the moment he saw the child to kill him. Zimmerman's own words and he actions and inconsistencies in his words. And Florida's self defense laws is not on his side.

Florida Law on Self Defense : Use of Force

Self Defense in Florida: Deadly and Non-Deadly Force
Self Defense in Florida: When is Non-Deadly Force Allowed?

Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat. If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Self Defense in Florida: When is Deadly Force Allowed?

There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.
Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Depend on what the jury believe what "beyond a reasonable doubts is" My bet is on the jury.

IF the prosecution could prove that, I'm sure they would have. Quit trying to reach a 'politically correct' verdict.

It has been a foregone conclusion to liberals for the last year and a half, Zimmerman is guilty. Zimmerman is a racist cop wannabe who profiled an innocent teenager.

 

[JoeB131]

You dont believe that when a large athletic 17yr old is on top of you punching you and telling you you are going to die tonight that a reasonable person would not be in fear of his life?

You mean that was one o fthe ever changing stories that Zimmerman told after he got caught?

Nope, don't believe that for a minute. In fact, I really don't believe much of what Zimmerman says, given his history of lying and none of the physical or eyewitness evidence does much to back him up.

So the bruises on the back of his head and his bloody nose were? What? SElf inflicted? You realize even the prosecution is in line with that basic story, right?

That would be injuries the doctors and ME classified as "minor" and "insubstantial".

 

[Plasmaball]

how come he hasnt said the same for all the kids killed in the inner cities ?.....not even one of them....just askin.....

they dont get national media attention? I dont know. Go ask him if you feel you need his opinion on that matter. He was asked about this and gave an answer.
Its fucking stupid to make a point out of it.

yea his answer...."tragic"....next question?.....he is a Rich guy now answering to other rich guys.....kids in the inner cities dont rate.....

I guess...I didnt loose any sleep over obamas comment. I understood it for what it was. Partisans needed to create something out of nothing.

 

[Plasmaball]

The moron in chief was "asked" but that does not mean he was obliged to make that idiotic comment.

He OUGHT to be able to invoke the famed "no comment." The bastard sure knows how to have his AG assert executive privilege.

"asked" no he was just asked because this had the national medias attention.
You are giving this to much thought about a nothing comment.

Typical.

No.

YOU (as usual) are simply too willing to easily dismiss the blunders and stupidity of the moron in chief.

Speaking of typical and all.

If this had been bush I would have stated the samething. Its sympathy and nothing more..

Typical welcher assuming things he knows nothing of.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean that was one o fthe ever changing stories that Zimmerman told after he got caught?

Nope, don't believe that for a minute. In fact, I really don't believe much of what Zimmerman says, given his history of lying and none of the physical or eyewitness evidence does much to back him up.

So the bruises on the back of his head and his bloody nose were? What? SElf inflicted? You realize even the prosecution is in line with that basic story, right?

That would be injuries the doctors and ME classified as "minor" and "insubstantial".

Irrelevant as to how severe they were. The injuries indicate he was on the ground and Martin was punching him. Do you deny that?

 

[The Rabbi]

"asked" no he was just asked because this had the national medias attention.
You are giving this to much thought about a nothing comment.

Typical.

No.

YOU (as usual) are simply too willing to easily dismiss the blunders and stupidity of the moron in chief.

Speaking of typical and all.

If this had been bush I would have stated the samething. Its sympathy and nothing more..

Typical welcher assuming things he knows nothing of.

If it had been Bush you would have blamed him for Martin's murder.

Obama should have said he has confidence in law enforcement to get all the facts and left it at that. But nooooooooo.

 

[Plasmaball]

No.

YOU (as usual) are simply too willing to easily dismiss the blunders and stupidity of the moron in chief.

Speaking of typical and all.

If this had been bush I would have stated the samething. Its sympathy and nothing more..

Typical welcher assuming things he knows nothing of.

If it had been Bush you would have blamed him for Martin's murder.

Obama should have said he has confidence in law enforcement to get all the facts and left it at that. But nooooooooo.

True...bush is the reason you are a fucking moron.

 

[The Rabbi]

If this had been bush I would have stated the samething. Its sympathy and nothing more..

Typical welcher assuming things he knows nothing of.

If it had been Bush you would have blamed him for Martin's murder.

Obama should have said he has confidence in law enforcement to get all the facts and left it at that. But nooooooooo.

True...bush is the reason you are a fucking moron.

That makes as much sense as anything else you've ever posted. Big nose.