Trayvon Martin shooting: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him, then began hammering him

[MetalHead]

Seriously. learn how to read.

Seriously,go chase another ambulance.

 

[peplaw06]

Points for originality.

 

[MetalHead]

Points for originality.

None taken.
You are more interested in legal jargon than facts.
This case is simple...what is complicated is the prosecution of a man who defended himself.

 

[Hoofbite]

I guess they tried to skype a witness and they didn't think about blocking the recipient's name so a bunch of guys starting interrupting their whole skype call.

 

[Hoofbite]

None taken.
You are more interested in legal jargon than facts.
This case is simple...what is complicated is the prosecution of a man who defended himself.

I'd take those points if I were you.

 

[lons]

No but maybe a cracker or two will get jumped



A jewball isn't getting followed. If trayvon was a fat Jew he'd be alive.

If I'm not mistaken, Zimmerman is half Jew half Cuban? If that's not a minority on minority crime, what is? If Zimmerman had the skin of say... Jose, the guy that walks around my neighborhood with a push mower asking if folks need their lawn mowed. This whole thing never get's seen by the public at large. But because it was assumed he was white from just looking at a doctored photo on ABC news.... We have what we have. If Obama is black.... Then Zimmerman is Cuban.

 

[peplaw06]

None taken.
You are more interested in legal jargon than facts.
This case is simple...what is complicated is the prosecution of a man who defended himself.

It's simple for simple-minded people.

You have no idea what the law is, so what little knowledge you do have of the facts is useless. What happens when that's the case is that you try to fit the facts into your predetermined opinion on what the result of the case should be. You put the cart before the horse. That's what 90% of the people who have anything to say about this case have done, so it's not uncommon.

And when someone comes in and tries to give you some information on the law, to let you have a more informed opinion, you rail against it if it doesn't fit with your predetermined opinion. It's the equivalent of a three year old sticking his fingers in his ears, screaming "la la la la."

 

[MetalHead]

It's simple for simple-minded people.

You have no idea what the law is, so what little knowledge you do have of the facts is useless. What happens when that's the case is that you try to fit the facts into your predetermined opinion on what the result of the case should be. You put the cart before the horse. That's what 90% of the people who have anything to say about this case have done, so it's not uncommon.

And when someone comes in and tries to give you some information on the law, to let you have a more informed opinion, you rail against it if it doesn't fit with your predetermined opinion. It's the equivalent of a three year old sticking his fingers in his ears, screaming "la la la la."

Then I guess Alan Dershowitz doesn't know the law either.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-overreached-with-murder-charge/

He's a Harvard Law professor.
Where do you teach?

 

[peplaw06]

There are reasonable arguments to be made on either side. Your arguments, on the other hand, are not reasoned. You're not interested in how the law applies to the facts. You're just a racist goon who's glad the kid got kilt.

By the way... do you have a Dershowitz article where he backs up your opinion of the admissibility of Trayvon's history? Or are you just throwing out his general opinion on the case to try to prop up your bumbling of a specific point of law?

 

[2233boys]

@ Metalhead

 

[JBond]

There are reasonable arguments to be made on either side. Your arguments, on the other hand, are not reasoned. You're not interested in how the law applies to the facts. You're just a racist goon who's glad the kid got kilt.

By the way... do you have a Dershowitz article where he backs up your opinion of the admissibility of Trayvon's history? Or are you just throwing out his general opinion on the case to try to prop up your bumbling of a specific point of law?

If I remember correctly, the judge ordered that the defense have access to the school records and his social media records. The only restriction was, they couldn't be used in the opening statement. Has that changed?

 

[Midswat]

As much as they're using Zimmermans history (restraining order, the criminal justice class he attended etc), then I'd be shocked if they didn't allow Martins history. Especially the bus driver assault and fight club style videos on his phone/youtube channel.

 

[Midswat]

I guess they tried to skype a witness and they didn't think about blocking the recipient's name so a bunch of guys starting interrupting their whole skype call.

I posted a video of that earlier. Hillarious. Even the witness was laughing.

 

[Hoofbite]

I posted a video of that earlier. Hillarious. Even the witness was laughing.

It was like watching a retirement home try to navigate a web browser.

"What is all the newfangled technology?".

 

[MetalHead]

As much as they're using Zimmermans history (restraining order, the criminal justice class he attended etc), then I'd be shocked if they didn't allow Martins history. Especially the bus driver assault and fight club style videos on his phone/youtube channel.

How come Zimmerman's parents were not allowed in the court room?
We can know everything about GZ,including his SSN,but nothing or very little about Martin.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a desire to find the truth can easily deduct that this trial is a joke,and that the prosecutor was pressured to press charges by the race bait charlatans.
Keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you happy.
93% of blacks who are murdered are murdered by blacks.
Why is Trayvon so special?...do their lives acquire more significance if they are murdered by other race?
Why was GZ labeled a "white hispanic"?...what is that?
Why is it that the media continues to show pictures of a pre-teen Trayvon?
Ask yourself those questions....this is not related to the rule of law.
It's a circus.

 

[Hoofbite]

I guess locating a phone based on the cell towers it's bouncing off of isn't all that precise. Or at least the records aren't available.

I would think both sides could really strengthen their argument if they could map out George's route once he got out on foot. I wonder if either side has looked into this. I'm guessing it must not be useful or else it would be out there.

For the prosecution, if they could show that George didn't simply walk through the cutout and then turn around it basically calls into question his entire story.

For the defense, if they can show that George did get out and walk across the cutout and then turnaround it gives some credibility to George's account all though it doesn't really detail what the hell happened in that time.

Or if they could use it to measure the distance traveled they could show he was running and not walking, which refutes his claim that he was getting out just to check the street and get an address, which in itself is just a ridiculous thing to do.

You're going to get out of your truck to get an address so the cops can meet you at a location other than your truck? Or would they still meet him at the truck and if they would why even get the address? If they were going to meet him at that address, why the hell would you have them meet you there when it's raining and you could just wait in your truck? Just going to stand in the dark rain when you can sit in your truck? Better hope someone doesn't see you just standing there in the darkness while it's raining, might be mistaken for someone who's up to no good.

I think George would be better off to not testify. Have they said if he would or if he wouldn't? I saw an article a couple of days ago asking if he would but nothing since.

His account has a lot of questions to be answered.

1. Why did you tell the dispatcher you were following him while the written statement and reenactment says that you only got out of your truck to check the street and get the address from the house on the next street over?

2. Why didn't you make it back to your truck in the time that passed?

3. Why didn't you come up with an address if your purpose was to get an address from the house on the next block? More specifically, if you were actually getting out of your truck to get an address why did you tell the dispatcher that you didn't know because you were sitting in the cutout? Why didn't you say that you were going over to look for the address?

4. You admit that you didn't know where Trayvon was.....while in the call it's only after you get out of your truck that it is clear you don't know where he is but in the reenactment you say you don't know where he is prior to getting out of your truck. Can you clear this up a bit?

5. If you don't know where he is, why would you be so focused on getting the address? If he's gone, why does it matter where you met the cops and given that you had already gone to such great lengths to describe the location of your truck, why try to change it all?

6. You said he was going towards the back exit but the address you are supposedly looking for doesn't really get any closer to that back exit. Once again, what was the point of getting that address? And once again, why didn't you ever get an address?

7. Why would you opt to stand in the rain to meet them at the address as opposed to just meeting at your truck?

8. What do you suppose someone else who may have seen you in front of that house think of you just standing there out in dark while it was raining as you were waiting for the cops to arrive?

His account of what happens after he gets out of his truck is just difficult for me to believe. Lots of irrational decision making about getting some address that would have been useless and that he ultimately never reported. Missing amounts of time which begs the questions as to what he was really doing and if he wasn't looking for Trayvon why was he just standing out there in the rain while all this time passed.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't see how he can make a case of self-defense without testifying. There have been too many inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony at this point to prove he did or didn't act in self-defense.

 

[JBond]

It up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ murdered TM. Does anyone think they have done that?

 

[MetalHead]

It's up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ murdered TM. Does anyone think they have done that?

Not even close.

 

[lons]

I don't see how he can make a case of self-defense without testifying. There have been too many inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony at this point to prove he did or didn't act in self-defense.

They've already shown every interview of him. There is nothing left to impeach. He doesn't have to take the stand, the Prosecution has already let him speak from the interviews and he can't be cross examined. They are idiots.