Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you talking about the legal verdict or are you engaging in general discussion? If you're talking about the legal issues, your claim to being "a good judge of character" is, to put it bluntly, worthless. That would not even be allowed as testimony in a court of law.
Again, you say there was no DNA found.
Most of the rest of this is just speculation on your part. Fine, I guess, if you want to just offer a general opinion, but if you're talking about legal issues, it's not evidence. This kind of speculation would not even make into a court of law as testimony.
I think my post covers everything in my response, which was to someone else. I am stating my view based upon everything related to the incident, which is what others are doing, also. Some are a just a better "judge of character" than others and is not worthless..lol. I did not suggest it being utilized from a legal standpoint, or for testimony. I guess you are unfamiliar with this term or ability.
As others have also stated, there was no DNA from each other found on either of them, for all that "supposedly occurred".
What else I listed has to do with facts, not "speculation". I suppose you must have overlooked all of that information and like some, seems you would rather believe the fantasy created by your hero. There were also aspects not fully addressed or cleared up during the trial, which I suppose you will deny.
I asked you a bunch of questions to try to get your explanations for why certain injuries weren't present on Zimmerman, and rather than trying to explain how they could be absent, you make a claim that asking you questions is a conspiracy theory and the lack of these key findings is irrelevant to George's credibility. That's quite amusing.
Please tell me where in the above you see a conspiracy? I personally only see a defendant who lied.
Still waiting for your explanation for how George's story could be true and all of the above expected physical evidence totally absent from his body.
Z's story does not have to be 100% accurate for him to get a NG verdict. Unless you want to switch the burden of proof from the state to the defense.
You quoted Serino in a previous post. Though I don't have his testimony handy, I recall O'Mara asking him about Z's inconsistent accounts. Serino's response was, paraphrasing, that it is no surprise to him that recollections change, and he'd be More suspicious if Z's accounts had remained exactly the same every time he told what happened.
Even though Serino felt that Z exaggerated how often he was hit, he testified that he believed Z was telling the truth.
Last edited by jazzarama; 03-03-2015 at 07:34 AM..
Let's see here, this is what we know:
1. Zimmerman had an injury to his face face and back of his head.
2. Martin had a cut on his finger by his knuckle.
3. A witness testified he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman fighting.
4. Zimmerman had grass stains on the back of his shirt.
5. Martin had no injuries to his body, other than the bullet wound.
6. Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands.
7. The gunshot was fired in close proximity in an upward angle consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
This shows EVIDENCE that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, while there is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (outside the gun shot).
Do we know for a fact who started the physical confrontation (who threw the first punch)? No.
Does Florida law allow a person to shoot and kill another who is physically assaulting him/her? Yes.
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman started the physical altercation? No.
So, how could Zimmerman have been found guilty?
----------
Yes, I know there are some who say, "Look, a white man shot and killed a little black boy who went to get candy because that white man hated black people", but those emotional reactionaries would be throwing people in prison left and right after reading just headlines.
It's my opinion that Martin was a thug-wanna-be. I base this opinion on his online activity, the threat against the bus driver and the apparent stolen jewelry. It's my opinion that he wasn't going to let someone punk him by following him around, and he decided to gain some cred with his friends by beating down some pudgy dude who was disrespecting him.
It's my opinion that Zimmerman was a cop-wanna-be with self-esteem issues that tried to compensate by being "in charge". I base this opinion on all of the 911 calls he made along with his activity following this incident.
When these two were put together that night, everything went wrong.
The catch is that when you look at the law and the evidence present, you can't convict Zimmerman of breaking any laws.
Sure, you can say Zimmerman is a bonehead, but at the same time, he was also trying to prevent crime in his neighborhood.
Z's supporters? Is this your euphemism for anyone who agrees with the jury's verdict, and the conclusions of the Obama Administration? Who are you to say what others believe or don't believe?
The point being, is that someone not blinded by race bias, looks at the evidence presented and concludes objectively the prosecution failed to prove their charge of murder or anything else done wrong. This doesn't mean they are a cheerleader for the Zimmerman. It only means they agree that proper due process was served.
Well, how might you differentiate the two? Those who are in agreement with the court's decision? Which translates to one believing the limited or false story / lack of evidence that would have changed the outcome, otherwise.
I've already said that my personal opinion has nothing to do with Race bias, what was concluded in the White house or anything you assume has to do with being Caucasian or not. My feelings have to do with WHAT HAPPENED, evidence that some refuse to see and was overlooked and the lack of character of a murderer, who has been allowed to roam, being violent with others. I am hardly alone in my view.
You continue to harp on there having "been a decision, so it's over". Just because there was a decision, does not mean it was correct. Of course we cannot do anything about it now, that doesn't mean some do not want to voice their frustration. This topic is regarding how GZ has proven that he is problematic and will continue causing trouble, but typically has easily become a place to reference how it originated.
It's my opinion that Martin was a thug-wanna-be. I base this opinion on his online activity, the threat against the bus driver and the apparent stolen jewelry. It's my opinion that he wasn't going to let someone punk him by following him around, and he decided to gain some cred with his friends by beating down some pudgy dude who was disrespecting him.
It's my opinion that Zimmerman was a cop-wanna-be with self-esteem issues that tried to compensate by being "in charge". I base this opinion on all of the 911 calls he made along with his activity following this incident.
When these two were put together that night, everything went wrong.
The catch is that when you look at the law and the evidence present, you can't convict Zimmerman of breaking any laws.
Sure, you can say Zimmerman is a bonehead, but at the same time, he was also trying to prevent crime in his neighborhood.
I couldn't agree more with this post. Whether he was right or wrong is a matter of opinion (I think Zimmerman was blatantly foolish and wrong, but oh well.) What matters is that he did not break any law. As ridiculous as it may be, the law fully permitted him to act the way he did.
As for your final sentence... I believe he was using that more as a crutch to act like a powerful police officer.
All these assumptions, scenarios being projected due to this incident. Just to mention, I believe T was wearing light clothing - Gray, Khaki and white shoes. He was not "casing anything".
This incident only developed due to one person's false perceptions - not different from what I see going on here.
The bottom line is.. ((sigh)) TM was NOT there for any other reason than trying to return to his Dad's girlfriend's home where he was staying.. they were going to watch a game on TV.
That sentence is from your false perception.
If you listen or read the SPD's Neighborhood Watch Coordinator's testimony, Z's call to dispatch under the circumstances fit perfectly into what she said were conditions to make the call.
Following TM is a different matter. Whether he should or shouldn't have followed is arguable.
His gun-slinging, RW supporters just want to believe what their Hero said. Here is the timeline of the incident, not that it will likely help Z's supporters to see the light:
7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.
7:15:43 -- Martin's call from the girl goes dead.
It was witnessed by a 13 year-old, seeing T on his back, moaning, crying.
[snipped most of timeline and self-congratulatory puffery]
TY.
You reminded me of the '4 minutes of silence' during O'Mara's closing argument.
4 minutes to escape the crazy a cracker, possible rapist, and he didn't ? You'll have one theory of what he did for 4 minutes, I have mine.
----------
You completely misrepresent the 13 year-old dog walker's statements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
