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.
bingo, we have a winner... martin must have been doing something illegal. so all those statements saying that martin was just walking around minding his own business doing nothing must be false...
i'm glad you finally realized this.
a neighborhood watch volunteer is watching a suspicious character from a distance. it is very difficult to watch someone without following them (others call this stalking). zimmerman's motive is to keep the neighborhood safe.
martin runs away and loses zimmerman (911 recorded evidence). motive is because he was being followed by a stranger and became scared.
zimmerman gets out of his vehicle to resume watch of suspicious person. motive, still the same. martin is out of view (911 recorded evidence).
martin does not run home to dad's residence. what is his motive? hmmmm....
zimmerman and martin confront each other (witnesses hearing two men arguing). martin no longer runs (evident of the witnesses). therefore, zimmerman does not have any motive to detain him. therefore the likelihood of zimmerman grabbing martin is very low (there is no motive to grab him).
there is a motive for every action.
someone mentioned that zimmerman may have pulled out a gun. but there is no motive for zimmerman to hold him at gun point. martin is not running. after losing zimmerman, martin had a chance to run away. but martin chose not to. what can martin's motive be? hmmmm... only one motive comes to mind. to beat up the guy that was following him. does evidence support this? you bet it does. martin's motive: from fear, to curiosity, to anger...
i don't need a crystal ball, the evidence speaks for itself.
That is good because yours has been reduced to a fuzzy orb.Would you like some Tinfoil? Those pure speculation radio waves are transmitting you again.
[URL="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-16/news/os-george-zimmerman-new-judge-20120416_1_media-companies-attorneys-mark-nejame"]Zimmerman's lawyer: Mark O'Mara I want a new judge[/URL]
The judge already said last week that she would recuse herself if asked by Zimmerman's attorney, because she wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety. This is only a formality. In fact, when Zimmerman's family asked her husband to represent him, he declined because he's been a commentator on CNN and thought there might be a conflict of interest. Old news. Sorry.
It's not your fault. Newspapers have very misleading headlines.
You do realize that when a poster resorts to personal attacks he/she is exposed as having failed arguments or being unable to elucidate his/her position.
you've lost your argument a long time ago... nothing remains but mudslinging.
your counter argument about witnesses contradicting themselves which makes them unreliable was false. it's easy to see that you have not read the existing witness statements.
then you dismiss witness testimony as evidence because human perception is less accurate than expert witnesses. you don't even realize that the expert witnesses are using their human perception which you believe is flawed.
so far, you really haven't dis-proven any of my evidence based arguments. my opinion of your intelligence is not an personal attack. it's an observation, such as Trayvon was a thug for beating on zimmerman. your intelligence lacks the ability to disprove my argument or prove your argument coherently.
we all know eye witness testimony is key evidence in a jury trial. we all know that experts are used in cases where there is no eye witness. there was an eyewitness to the scream. witness will testify that he saw the man in red on the bottom screaming for help. you really think an expert that states under oath that the witness is mistaken will be believable by the jury?
you can go on about me attacking your character. but that's a diversion to avoid your failed argument.
we all know eye witness testimony is key evidence in a jury trial.
So why do you believe one eyewitness, but not another? I can't remember if it was you or another poster here, but he said that the eyewitness knows Zimmerman, which is why he will make a good eyewitness. Then I responded that, if he knew him, why isn't there any mention of his name or that he's the NW captain? The reply to my question was inane. In fact, no caller in any of the 911 tapes, or witnesses who were interviewed, mentioned seeing or hearing George Zimmerman by name. Sounds as if he was part of a very small group who ran around chasing people and didn't really know everyone in the neighborhood. I wonder if the woman Trayvon Martin was staying with, who has lived in the same townhouse for 4 years, knows Zimmerman. From what I can tell, Martin's father has never met Zimmerman, but he often visits his fiancee.
I've read and written hundreds (maybe thousands) of comments. Still, nobody has once told me what Trayvon Martin was doing that was suspicious.
Walking on a rainy night?
Wearing a hooded sweatshirt?
Drinking iced tea?
I'm still waiting.
listen to the 911 recording. zimmerman believed martin was acting suspiciously. you need to hear zimmerman's testimony on exactly what he saw. since we don't know, we can't say exactly what Trayvon was doing. it's the same as we can't say Trayvon was doing nothing, because someone reported him doing something.
The judge already said last week that she would recuse herself if asked by Zimmerman's attorney, because she wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety. This is only a formality.
Just posting the current status...
His lawyer might want to reconsider...
"Recksiedler has had recent experience with that law. Two weeks before Trayvon's death, she dismissed an aggravated-assault case against a 45-year-old Oviedo man after a "stand your ground" hearing."
So why do you believe one eyewitness, but not another?
because the others were ear witnesses. i believe them, but not their opinion on who they think was screaming. if they say it was zimmerman screaming, i would ignore that statement and rely on the witness that actually saw it. since the young boy's mom recanted the son's testimony, he is no longer an eyewitness. if john, the only eyewitness to who was screaming didn't step forward, then i would rely on the expert witness and question the validity of the police report. i would try to find a motive to why the policeman would perjure himself for zimmerman.
i'm going on facts. if there was no blood or injuries reported by the police and no eyewitnesses to support zimmerman, then i would not be defending him.
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.
