Zimmerman

[jtpr312]

[

Firing squad works well for your communist friends all over the world.

Right, whine about "communism" when all other arguments fail.

Think it's bad that a racist bully shoots an unarmed child in the middle of the street?

you must be a "communist"!

I thought this was abaut Zimmerman and taryvon? Trayvon wasn't any "child" slick. You don't still think those pics the media showed of that sweet little twelve year old, where of the 6'+ grown man that attacked Zimmerman do you?

 

[jtpr312]

It's amazing to me this is still a topic. Can't wait to read about Zimmerman being bashed to death in a prison shower room. Anyone defending this pig makes me seriously question their character.

I would think that anyone who would advocate for a prison gang beating a man to death in the shower has little or no room to talk about anyone else's "character". Zimmerman was attacked by a bigger, stronger, younger and healthier man who was attempting to beat him and he used his God given right to defend himself against that attack, and you, while disparaging other's character, say you would like to see a gang of convicted scum beat this man to death. You sir, lack character, brains and decency.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Firing squad works well for your communist friends all over the world.

Right, whine about "communism" when all other arguments fail.

Think it's bad that a racist bully shoots an unarmed child in the middle of the street?

you must be a "communist"!

I thought this was abaut Zimmerman and taryvon? Trayvon wasn't any "child" slick. You don't still think those pics the media showed of that sweet little twelve year old, where of the 6'+ grown man that attacked Zimmerman do you?

He was 17 years old, which legally still makes him a child.

But I'm glad to see you aren't disputing that he was unarmed and that Zimmerman shot him in the middle of the street.

 

[JoeB131]

It's amazing to me this is still a topic. Can't wait to read about Zimmerman being bashed to death in a prison shower room. Anyone defending this pig makes me seriously question their character.

I would think that anyone who would advocate for a prison gang beating a man to death in the shower has little or no room to talk about anyone else's "character". Zimmerman was attacked by a bigger, stronger, younger and healthier man who was attempting to beat him and he used his God given right to defend himself against that attack, and you, while disparaging other's character, say you would like to see a gang of convicted scum beat this man to death. You sir, lack character, brains and decency.

Well, it will discourage the next racist asshole who wants to use his gun as a penis substitute...

So, yeah, Zimmerman's inevitable shanking in a prison will be a good thing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Right, whine about "communism" when all other arguments fail.

Think it's bad that a racist bully shoots an unarmed child in the middle of the street?

you must be a "communist"!

I thought this was abaut Zimmerman and taryvon? Trayvon wasn't any "child" slick. You don't still think those pics the media showed of that sweet little twelve year old, where of the 6'+ grown man that attacked Zimmerman do you?

He was 17 years old, which legally still makes him a child.

But I'm glad to see you aren't disputing that he was unarmed and that Zimmerman shot him in the middle of the street.

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

 

[Gadawg73]

What evidence is there ANYWHERE that Zimmerman is a racist?
Other than the dumb asses here that believe everything Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Pimp Tones preach.
A racist is someone that believes their race is superior to another in all areas.
Show me where Zimmerman is that.
I know for a fact that Zimmerman believes Trayvon Martin was a better basketball player than him.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are still using plural, that is not what is in the ME's report. The ME noted only one (singular) 1/8 x 1/4 small abrasion on a single finger (fourth finger, left hand).




Gadawg, you know me, I've been around for awhile I don't deflect or side step. You said...

​

There are no "bloody knuckles" mentioned in the ME's report. (A) it is described as a small abrasion, and (b) it is singular not plural as you describe.



Could you be more specific? That's kind of broad.



I've repeatedly said that from the time that Zimmerman followed Martin around behind the apartment complex to the time that the first witnesses (some claiming Martin was on top, at least one claiming Zimmerman was on top) there is a "dead zone" where we don't know what happened. It is equally possible that Zimmerman or Martin initiated hostilities.

The only witness to the events between the end of the dispatcher call and the first neighbors starting to view the scene is the girl friends testimony (and mark my words she will be allowed to testify) that she was (a) on the phone with Martin, (b) that the time of the call was during the incident, and (c) that she heard a voice confront Martin while he was talking to her. That testimony will be admitted because it is direct observation even if she is barred from stating what Martin said to her because of the hearsay rule.

What you do see me post on is when people incorrectly state what the evidence shows (either for or against Zimmerman). For example I've disagreed with people that said the Zimmerman was motivated by racism, no he was a neighborhood watch, he was motivated by protecting the neighborhood. I've disagreed with people that try to claim that Zimmerman's previous assault on a police officer 8 years ago was relevant to the Martin shooting. I've also disagreed and defended Zimmerman against those who claim he clearly committed Murder 2 and should get life in prison. IMHO, the evidence does not support that charge. So I've not ONLY impugned Zimmerman.

But lets face it Martin is dead, we don't have his story. The ONLY story we have to try to match to the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, and the witness statements is Zimmerman's story and that why much of the discussion focuses on that. If we had statements, audio recordings, and video reenactments by Martin, then we could equally focus on those as well - but we don't.

But lets me honest, when people say the evidence shows that Zimmerman returned to his truck when told to do so by the dispatcher - they are wrong. A time distance analysis shows that Zimmerman had to continue away from his truck. Then of course Zimmerman also indicated he continued to move away from his truck. I will also disagree when someone says the autopsy report showed Martin had "bloody knuckles" - it didn't. The autopsy report showed a single small abrasion which (IIRC from the audio tapes) are inconsistent with someone delivering multiple blows to the head.

Do I question Zimmerman's story as being inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence - you bet your ass. While there is no doubt that Zimmerman and Martin were in a fight, some things don't match up. Is that saying Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 - not in the least.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense and I mean you no disrespect as I believe you to be reasonable and open minded.
But you still do not understand where I am coming from as this ENTIRE case is a criminal case yet you and others still do not understand the basics of the criminal law and how it applies to how each side has totally OPPOSITE burdens not only on how they prosecute and defend the case but, most importantly, how they present it to the jury.
1. The standard of proof in a civil case is where most of you are coming from in our discussions here. In a civil case there requires one side to have more evidence than the other or that the winning argument is more probable than not. This entails some sense of weighing evidence based on the relative importance of the various pieces of evidence presented in a case. That is PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and that is what you are arguing here in CRIMINAL CASE and it is a faulty argument 100% of the time. Let me give you an example of this. You are arguing that since the finger had abrasions on it then maybe it happened from something else. That holds NO water in this criminal case because the state, the prosecution, has to PROVE EVERY ELEMENT of their argument BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Your "well, the defendant really can not prove that the abrasions on the finger was bloody and he can not prove the broken nose and the abrasions on the back of his head and face were caused by the victim" would be a foolish argument for the prosecution to make as you CAN NOT prove it DID NOT HAPPEN. The defendant does not have to PROVE ANYTHING in defense of his innocence. That burden is 100% on the prosecution. If you can not prove any and every assumption YOU make beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is found not guilty. Every assumption made by the defendant such as the abrasions on his finger were most likely and probably from a bloody knuckle is allowed as that is their case FOR REASONABLE DOUBT. And the only way for the prosecution to attack that is with 100% PROOF that it was not from that. That burden, under the law, is 100% for the prosecution to prove false without ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. The requirement that the prosecution, or anyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty or is offering "well, it possibly could have been this or that" is ALWAYS that the prosecution and everyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The requirement that the prosecution prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT of a crime in order to convict Zimmerman is NO EXCEPTION. That is the law of the land in all criminal cases. The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution, and anyone here that offers "well, maybe Martin did this or Zimmerman did that, that is a "possibility"", and the presumption of innocence granted EVERY DEFENDANT AND ZIMMERMAN, are based on the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
3. At the end of the trial the jury will hear a Wentworth charge from the Judge. I have heard this charge hundreds of times in the criminal cases I have worked on for 34 years. The charge will be very similar to this and this one IS allowed in Florida: "Under all constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until provenguilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove or disprove anything. That burden is entirely on the prosecution. The burden of prove is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and YOU must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of EVERY element of the alleged offense. If after all the evidence and arguments you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's having committed ANY ONE or more of the elements of the offense then you MUST find him not guilty."
A reasonable doubt definition is added at the end as to what constitutes reasonable doubt. The fact remains that at this point any and all arguments about "well, maybe Zimmerman did this and maybe he did that" are moot and no prosecutor would ever present his case against any defendant that way. That is not proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is HIS BURDEN. The prosecution's argument has to be SOLID PROOF ALL THE WAY. The defendant's burden is 100% different. His argument can be "well, maybe it was this because the finger was that and that is a possibility" And THAT IS A VALID argument as the defendant has a DIFFERENT BURDEN than the prosecution in a criminal case where the burden is ON the prosecution 100%. The prosecution can have 99.999999999% of the evidence to prove his case and all Zimmerman would have to have is .00000000000001% of the evidence to prove reasonable doubt and the charge and duty of the jury would be to find him NOT GUILTY. In a civil case the plaintiff has to have 50.1% to win, the more evidence he has in a civil case wins it.
Not here. Here and in the criminal court anyone that offers anything as to the guilt of Zimmerman has to have 100% SOLID PROOF.
All the defenders of Zimmerman, a man that is PRESUMED INNOCENT now and through the entire trial have to have is reasonable doubt and we do not need any evidence to prove reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is presumed innocent and any way the defense can show any possibility in any way that the evidence MAY show this or that CAN be that reasonable doubt.
The prosecution can not argue any of that. Their burden has to be 100% solid fact to prove guilt.
The defendant does not HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.

I read you post and appreciate it.

The basic point is that we agree. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to make their case for Murder 2 and (IMHO) it's a pretty week case. I'm still not quite clear under Florida law if there are lesser included offense provisions or if it's an all or nothing shot by the prosecution at Murder 2.

But I will tell you that the defense has to prepare - well - a defense. If you think that the prosecution is going to make their case and the defense isn't going to need to present rebuttal evidence and/or witnesses, and/or expert testimony. If O'Mara tried that, then Zimmerman would be trouble.

The reality is that their is a huge difference between us here in the internet shooting the bull about this, that, and the other thing and presenting our opinions of what those things mean and a court room where the final measure is the opinion of the Jury and whether they consider the prosecution to have proved the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.


>>>>

If I was the prosecutor I would not object to a Judge's charge to the jury on both lesser charges of manslaughter.
Fight it after the evidence is heard as that is when they tender their jury charges but not fight it when the Judge agrees to it.

 

[Gadawg73]

How many here will accept the jury verdict no matter what it is?
How many here will accept the Judge's directed verdict of acquittal if he rules the SYG defense is valid?

 

[Ravi]

I thought this was abaut Zimmerman and taryvon? Trayvon wasn't any "child" slick. You don't still think those pics the media showed of that sweet little twelve year old, where of the 6'+ grown man that attacked Zimmerman do you?

He was 17 years old, which legally still makes him a child.

But I'm glad to see you aren't disputing that he was unarmed and that Zimmerman shot him in the middle of the street.

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

 

[Gadawg73]

He was 17 years old, which legally still makes him a child.

But I'm glad to see you aren't disputing that he was unarmed and that Zimmerman shot him in the middle of the street.

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You are seriously a dumb ass.
What I said, if you took the time to put the pipe down, is that IF Martin shot Zimmerman, turn the tables around, Martin would be tried as an adult in the criminal courts.
Turn the tables around. Uh, duh, Zimmerman is Martin and Martin is Zimmerman. Facts then are Zimmerman is dead and Martin is charged with murder.
But thanks for proving my point. If Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman you would be the first to cry for his freedom.
Because he is black and Zimmerman is white.

 

[Luissa]

View attachment 22890

New ball game.

I always ask morons who support Zimmerman why Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself? He was the one who was followed for no reason by a guy with a gun.

 

[Luissa]

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You are seriously a dumb ass.
What I said, if you took the time to put the pipe down, is that IF Martin shot Zimmerman, turn the tables around, Martin would be tried as an adult in the criminal courts.
Turn the tables around. Uh, duh, Zimmerman is Martin and Martin is Zimmerman. Facts then are Zimmerman is dead and Martin is charged with murder.
But thanks for proving my point. If Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman you would be the first to cry for his freedom.
Because he is black and Zimmerman is white.

No we wouldn't, because then Martin would have followed a person for no reason and then shot him when he fought back. Most of us are smart enough to realize who the real criminal is in the situation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You're right. Had Martin killed Zimmerman under the same circumstances, he'd be declared a hero by the press and there would have never been any charges.

Some are a LOT more equal in this society.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I always ask morons who support Zimmerman why Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself? He was the one who was followed for no reason by a guy with a gun.

What do you mean "no reason?"

You're a dumbass painting a fiction in direct contradiction of the facts of the case.

 

[Luissa]

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You're right. Had Martin killed Zimmerman under the same circumstances, he'd be declared a hero by the press and there would have never been any charges.

Some are a LOT more equal in this society.

Actually, we wouldn't have heard about it if Martin had shot Zimmerman. It would have been long forgotten and Martin would be sitting in jail and would have been arrested that night.

 

[Gadawg73]

View attachment 22890

New ball game.

I always ask morons who support Zimmerman why Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself? He was the one who was followed for no reason by a guy with a gun.

I support Zimmerman getting a fair trial.
You do not so who is the moron?
Following someone with a gun is a crime where? In what state? Please enlighten us as to your legal knowledge on that subject. Where is that a crime?
If there are facts that Martin was defending himself then the Stand Your Ground defense applies to him also.
I, unlike you, will listen and if there is evidence of that the law will apply equally there also.
As a defender of freedom and the law you need to govern yourself accordingly.
If Zimmerman was defending himself and there is evidence at trial that he was and that Martin attacked him FIRST good to see that you would follow the law, instead of your factless emotions, and vote not guilty also.
But I doubt it. As a low information citizen your mind is already made up. TV and media is your only evidence.

 

[Gadawg73]

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You're right. Had Martin killed Zimmerman under the same circumstances, he'd be declared a hero by the press and there would have never been any charges.

Some are a LOT more equal in this society.

Actually, we wouldn't have heard about it if Martin had shot Zimmerman. It would have been long forgotten and Martin would be sitting in jail and would have been arrested that night.

 

[Luissa]

View attachment 22890

New ball game.

I always ask morons who support Zimmerman why Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself? He was the one who was followed for no reason by a guy with a gun.

I support Zimmerman getting a fair trial.
You do not so who is the moron?
Following someone with a gun is a crime where? In what state? Please enlighten us as to your legal knowledge on that subject. Where is that a crime?
If there are facts that Martin was defending himself then the Stand Your Ground defense applies to him also.
I, unlike you, will listen and if there is evidence of that the law will apply equally there also.
As a defender of freedom and the law you need to govern yourself accordingly.
If Zimmerman was defending himself and there is evidence at trial that he was and that Martin attacked him FIRST good to see that you would follow the law, instead of your factless emotions, and vote not guilty also.
But I doubt it. As a low information citizen your mind is already made up. TV and media is your only evidence.

Where did I ever say Zimmerman didn't deserve a fair trial??? I will be waiting for a link.

And all I need to know is Martin did nothing wrong, and Zimmerman followed him. Should a stalker get off because the women he was stalking fought back, and he then killed her in " self defense"?

I think anyone deserves a fair trial, I still think he should be going to prison for a good amount of time.

 

[Luissa]

You're right. Had Martin killed Zimmerman under the same circumstances, he'd be declared a hero by the press and there would have never been any charges.

Some are a LOT more equal in this society.

Actually, we wouldn't have heard about it if Martin had shot Zimmerman. It would have been long forgotten and Martin would be sitting in jail and would have been arrested that night.

It is funny how the system works.

 

[Gadawg73]

Seriously dude? Martin isn't going be tried in criminal court. You just keep looking stupid.

You are seriously a dumb ass.
What I said, if you took the time to put the pipe down, is that IF Martin shot Zimmerman, turn the tables around, Martin would be tried as an adult in the criminal courts.
Turn the tables around. Uh, duh, Zimmerman is Martin and Martin is Zimmerman. Facts then are Zimmerman is dead and Martin is charged with murder.
But thanks for proving my point. If Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman you would be the first to cry for his freedom.
Because he is black and Zimmerman is white.

No we wouldn't, because then Martin would have followed a person for no reason and then shot him when he fought back. Most of us are smart enough to realize who the real criminal is in the situation.

Because you have already heard all of the evidence, right!
Uh, hate to break the news to you but there will be a trial and a jury to decide this.
None of us have seen any of the evidence in this case yet, NONE of it.
All we have "seen" is not relevant as NONE of it has been tendered and argued over whether or not it will be admitted in court.
You are a low information citizen unfit to serve on a jury. Biased to the core.
You believe someone is guilty before trial. You do not even know that under our American system, the accused, Zimmerman IS ALWAYS PRESUMED INNOCENT BEFORE TRIAL AND UNTIL THE LAST SECOND OF TRIAL
Please educate yourself as to the law and the rights of the accused.