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.
I think the defense has wisely stayed away from that. While you can make a case showing Martin to be less than perfect, the case showing a violent Zimmerman would be easier. His MySpace page against Mexicans. His being fired because he had a quick temper and prone to rage. Even his buddy Frank Taaffe saying George was just "Fed Up" can be linked to what George did and how he acted when he was Fed Up.
In the end, there is no way to get the actual narrative from that night, we'll never know. Perhaps this and that is all we can come up with. George defined the narrative in his story, as he knows there's no other source. But leading up to the final fight, neighbors heard loud arguing, followed by the scuffle in the grass and the cries for help. That, and other statements and evidence at the entire scene of the crime, suggests that the initial face to face occurred around the Tee, and quickly escalated to where the final shooting took place. That paints a picture of maybe loud arguing, perhaps pushing or shoving, and the two not backing off as they made it South down the walkway. All speculation of course, but it paints a more complete and realistic scene than the one depicted by Zimmerman, which I think is the biggest omission of choice he made in his re-enactment.
Obviously, inclusion of those details would not make for a good self-defense case, especially if he's the one that escalated it. With George's history, it makes it far more plausible given his quick temper, and being Fed Up as his friend Frank stated.
That's the type of case, and path of indictment that the prosecution would have been expected to make. Linking stories to events and evidence, and step by step discrediting the defendant's statements. Maybe the outcome would be the same, but I doubt it would be as lopsided as what we have now. This prosecution has been chaotic, seemingly poorly planned given the amount of time supplied, and without any momentum that leads to a clear, concise case.
I like your recounting of what might have really happened, but it leads me to a different view of what in tm's past is relevant and beneficial to the defense --- any authenticated evidence of tm as a fighter.
GZ's supposed skill in mma was brought up at least 3 times: by Guy in his opening, in the PA's testimony, and in Good's questioning. The clear impliation is that GZ would be the one to either initiate or escalate a physical confrontation. 'The MMA artist with a gun and 40 pound weight advantage vs. an unarmed skinny kid with Skittles' isn't a terrific contrast for the defense to leave with jurors.
I wonder if the jury will remember what zimmerman looked like a year ago? He sits in the courtroom all porky and pudgy today, but he certainly wasn't then.
Some might think 'oh, that soft fat boy had no chance against a ripped 17 year old'.
I am guessing they saw him in the re-enactment? I didn't get to see that part of the trial, so I don't know.
A "mild fatty liver" can be caused by alcohol and medication. Logically, that doesn't mean he had them in his system that very day, because it would take time for the condition to show itself.
I am just saying that there are FB posts that proves he was involved in the "drank" or "lean", he had THC in his system - he isn't the innocent child the media keeps trying to portray.
Having this type of behavioral history can show that he could be an aggressive person.
I don't know how much of this personal information the Defense will be allowed. But, if they are going to show GZ as having ill will from his past history, they could be on equal footing as to TM's history as well.
Today, before the Defense makes it case, I rule it a Hung Jury.
That's kinda what I have thought all along. Amongst 6 people, there's bound to be a bleeding heart liberal who will ignore facts and not watch the evidence and/or witnesses, much like several people who post on forums, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Neither party broke the law before the physical altercation which, most likely, was started by Martin. That is what the Martin supporters cannot understand.
I wonder if the jury will remember what zimmerman looked like a year ago? He sits in the courtroom all porky and pudgy today, but he certainly wasn't then.
Some might think 'oh, that soft fat boy had no chance against a ripped 17 year old'.
I am guessing they saw him in the re-enactment? I didn't get to see that part of the trial, so I don't know.
don't fret. They saw the reenactment and videos of his police interviews.
Where'd you get the 'ripped' 17 year old ? All they know is the skinny dead child.
No, I don't, the remedy if you do not like the law is legislative action. It is not ignoring the law and trying an individual based on what you would like the law to be.
To the moron who called me a dumbass thanks for the rep, much appreciated!
PS: you are a chickenchit for not leaving your name.
This has happened to me, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Your second paragraph in particular is pure speculation. While you may want this to be true, there is no evidence of such.
I would think, one of the key questions for the defense to answer is if Martin was the type of personality to attack someone if followed. However, am not sure the judge would allow evidence, if any, of past wrongdoings to try and show this to the jury. From a common sense perspective, it makes sense she would allow it, much as she allowed the evidence of Zimmerman's previous calls about suspicious persons and his application to be a police officer. The prosecution, by using that, was trying to show motive. Same thing for the defense, I think, would be to show the motive for Martin to attack Zimmerman.
This:
Quote:
But no, he was determined to make sure that this one didn't get away.
is NOT pure speculation. GZ complained to the police that these ******** always get away.
I don't think there is enough evidence of Murder 2. Too bad, because that's most likely what it was, but they have to be able to prove it. Manslaughter is a possibility I think.
Last edited by florida.bob; 07-07-2013 at 08:17 AM..
I expect the jury to be out a couple days just to make it look good.
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.
