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.
Yes I read all of the posts and started commenting about half way back.
My point, which apparently went over your head, is Who, with any credibility, has said that "Martin nearly beat him to death"? No "CREDIBLE" witnesses or officials have said anything of the sort. Zimmerman said he was being beaten so badly he was in fear for his life. And all of the available evidence clearly points to the fact that Martin beat him badly, but how do you measure "nearly to death". There is no yardstick capable of measuring that.
GZ wasn't beaten nearly to death. Maybe on his back, head slammed against the ground, he 'reasonably believed' the next slam or two could kill him. Anyway, the standard for when you can use self defense isn't until you feel nearly beaten to death
The 911 dispatcher is a trained member of the public safety system and told him not to go after Martin. You're splitting mighty fine hairs there bucko.
Do you call it splitting hairs when you lie about what the dispatcher said? Or is that simply lying and you are comfortable with that?
The 911 dispatcher did not say "do not go after Martin". They said "we don't need you to do that". They did not say "don't do that", or "we forbid you to do that", or "we order you to not do that", or "you should not do that" or anything of the sort.
About 7 p.m.: George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, calls 911 to report "a suspicious person" in the gated community Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman says he is following Martin after the teen started to run, prompting the dispatcher to tell him, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman pursues Martin anyway, but then says he lost sight of him.
It amazes me how many of the people who are defending Martin either are ignorant of the facts that have been reported or insist on lying and twisting the facts to try and support what they "imagined" happened.
GZ wasn't beaten nearly to death. Maybe on his back, head slammed against the ground, he 'reasonably believed' the next slam or two could kill him. Anyway, the standard for when you can use self defense isn't until you feel nearly beaten to death
Yes, as I wrote: "Zimmerman said he was being beaten so badly he was in fear for his life."
Do you call it splitting hairs when you lie about what the dispatcher said? Or is that simply lying and you are comfortable with that?
The 911 dispatcher did not say "do not go after Martin". They said "we don't need you to do that". They did not say "don't do that", or "we forbid you to do that", or "we order you to not do that", or "you should not do that" or anything of the sort.
It amazes me how many of the people who are defending Martin either are ignorant of the facts that have been reported or insist on lying and twisting the facts to try and support what they "imagined" happened.
Stick to the facts, the truth is your friend!
i think the most relevant part is what happened after zimmerman "lost sight of him".
that is probably going to decide whether zimmerman is convicted or acquitted, and nobody is going to know the answer to that until after all the witnesses come forward at the trial, and all the 911 tapes are played.
In this particular trial, Zimmerman is the only witness to what happened. Therefore Zimmerman is either going to have to take the stand and convince the jury he is telling the truth (which allows the state to cross examine him and impeach him with the many lies he has told), or he has to not testify and depend on his attorney to make such a spectacular and convincing closing argument that the jury will decide that the state's evidence is not convincing and acquit him.
Actually Zimmerman's statements to the police are already a matter of record. There is no reason he should have to take the stand to convince the jury of anything or subject himself to cross examination. It is the prosecuting attorney's job to prove Zimmerman is guilty.
i think the most relevant part is what happened after zimmerman "lost sight of him".
that is probably going to decide whether zimmerman is convicted or acquitted, and nobody is going to know the answer to that until after all the witnesses come forward at the trial, and all the 911 tapes are played.
Maybe I've forgotten more than I remember of witness statements, but I don't recall anyone who saw anything that happened before the fight itself. I think gz's statements and recreations, the girl friend's testimony [if she testifies], compared to any physical evidence is all the jury will have for the path after gz lost sight of tm.
Actually Zimmerman's statements to the police are already a matter of record. There is no reason he should have to take the stand to convince the jury of anything or subject himself to cross examination. It is the prosecuting attorney's job to prove Zimmerman is guilty.
How conveniently the Trayvonitas forget that!
I'm of the personal opinion a defendant should never take the stand. Too bad Gerry Spence isn't Zimm's attorney.
Only thing the new photos prove is that Zimmerman and Martin got into a fight, and that Martin got in a couple of good licks before the coward decided to end it with the gun.
forensic evidence and other photos shows that zimmerman had no bruises on his knuckles. Coroner dude mentions bruises on Martins knuckles and no other physical injuries other than the bullet hole. pot was also found in Martins system.
these are facts, not opinions. i merely posted the photos that many believed zimmerman lied about and that the cops were trying to cover up.
i didn't post the photos of zimmermans hands, but i'm sure everyone has seen it already. there's no indication that zimmerman used his fists against Martin. but there is evidence that zimmerman attacked Martin's fists with his head... LoL
forensic evidence and other photos shows that zimmerman had no bruises on his knuckles. Coroner dude mentions bruises on Martins knuckles and no other physical injuries other than the bullet hole. pot was also found in Martins system.
these are facts, not opinions. i merely posted the photos that many believed zimmerman lied about and that the cops were trying to cover up.
i didn't post the photos of zimmermans hands, but i'm sure everyone has seen it already. there's no indication that zimmerman used his fists against Martin. but there is evidence that zimmerman attacked Martin's fists with his head... LoL
Who's saying Zimmerman didn't get his behind handed to him? That was apparent from the very beginning. What remains to be discovered is who instigated the confrontation. The only thing that attempts to explain this is Zimmerman's version of events, which on close inspection is quite frankly hogwash. And the absence of marks on Zimmerman's hands doesn't even remotely negate the possibility that he may have struck Trayvon as well at some point.
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.
