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 know from the trial that Tracy heard the 911 tape 2 weeks before Sybrina. Beause they're divorced you think it's normal for Tracy not to tell her what to expect to hear on the call. I think it's mean.
I know from the trial that Tracy heard the 911 tape 2 weeks before Sybrina and said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. Beause they're divorced you think it's normal for Tracy not to tell her what to expect to hear on the call. I think it's mean.
The self-defense argument is questionable because I believe that Trayvon had a right to defend himself just as much if not more than Zimmerman.
Many aspects of Zimmerman's account do not make sense, as I've reiterated in this thread. For example, even George's statement that Trayvon said, "Tonight's your night to die ***."
That would make sense perhaps if Trayvon were indeed what Zimmerman perceived him as, a criminal, a thug. But this was a 17-year old school boy with no history of violent crime whatsoever, who was probably frightened. Trayvon did not have a gun on him. There is nothing to indicate that he had it in him to shoot another person, or even think of shooting a person just because they were fighting, but I believe he sure did try to resist getting shot.
If all the above we're true, you still can't say that they have met their burden of proof. At this point shouldn't you have a pretty clear idea of a state theory of events? There is still too many unanswered questions to convict.
Right now, the defense has the prosecution beat.. If they put Zimmerman on the stand and he makes a mistake it could lead to a conviction that right now he isn't having to look at.. Putting Zimmerman on the stand would be a huge mistake and the defense knows it.
What do you mean "if he makes a mistake"? He's either guilty of murder or he acted in self defense. If he acted in self defense, how could he make a mistake on the stand?
This case boils down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman was telling the truth or not. The prosecution has already exposed him as a liar.
Since the defense also knows that if he makes a mistake on the stand it could lead to a conviction, it's all about beating the prosecution and letting a guilty man walk.
Of course he made a mistake by getting out of the car to keep an eye on TM till cops arrived. But, He had no reason to believe it would become a physical confrontation though.
This ^^^^^^. Getting out of the car wasn't a wise decision. But many victims of crime do something stupid before they become victims. Walk down a dark alley at night, get really drunk at a party, leave their doors unlocked, etc. They don't deserve whatever crime happens to them because they did something stupid.
It's always better to protect yourself by making wise decisions. But making a stupid decision doesn't take away your right to defend your self against someone assaulting you.
What do you mean "if he makes a mistake"? He's either guilty of murder or he acted in self defense. If he acted in self defense, how could he make a mistake on the stand?
This case boils down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman was telling the truth or not. The prosecution has already exposed him as a liar.
Since the defense also knows that if he makes a mistake on the stand it could lead to a conviction, it's all about beating the prosecution and letting a guilty man walk.
If that were always the case then they would have to take the stand. Theres a reason defendants dont have to take the stand.
Since the defense also knows that if he makes a mistake on the stand it could lead to a conviction, it's all about beating the prosecution and letting a guilty man walk.
He's not guilty until the jury says so and at this point it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Both officers said that they felt he embellished his story some, but felt he was telling the truth. So, I will go on that. Although, aside from everything that is plausible, that is a strange thing for him to say.
People tend to forget that the Sanford PD came under fire for not doing enough of a thorough investigation and allowng a dead teen to remain a John Doe for two days even though they had his cell phone. Don't you think that they are covering their own butts to some degree?
How would it sound if they admitted to GZ's story being somewhat suspect to them to some degree, but let him go anyway and just chalked it up to an insignificant run of the mill case. Who the hell takes someone's word in toto under circumstances such as this??? I wonder if George Zimmerman was in the least bit curious as to the identity of who he killed.
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.
