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.
* TM was found a distance from where GZ claimed they "struggled" on cement.
In fact, there was a trail of "debris" starting from the sidewalk T and ending where TM was pounding GZ and where GZ shot TM. The debris included GZ's cell phone and a small flashlight, which he dropped at the T, where TM initially assaulted GZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
* There were no grass stains, dirt on GZ's back for having a guy above him "repeatedly beating upon him".
Yes, there was. Photos showing that were admitted into evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
* TM only had one itty-bitty cut on a finger, for someone doing all that was portrayed.
TM had wet knees. He had a slightly swollen knuckle. The bullet forensics supported GZ's version of the incident, and an eye witness testified that he saw TM atop GZ, pounding GZ in the face/head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
* GZ's wounds were proven to be surface, and that dribbling blood...which if he had really experienced repeated head slamming, would have been damaged - but did not even go to the hospital. By the time he was in the police department, it didn't look bad. Nose was not actually broken. (I believe he did this to himself).
Initially, the Prosecution withheld color photos of GZ's injuries until well into the trial. GZ had a bloodied and swollen nose, and there was blood dripping and running down the back of his head.
Nonetheless, this was irrelevant, as a traditional affirmative defence of self defence does not require a person to wait until he/she actually suffers grave bodily injury or death before he/she take action to defend him/herself.
That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? Making the victim suffer grave bodily injury or death before permitting the victim to act in self defence?
I suppose you think a girl about to be raped should wait until there is penetration before she resorts to self defence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
* GZ kept altering his recount of the story.
Actually, no, he did not. In fact, as revealed at trial, the coppers were quite astonished at how consistent his version held, even after repeated tellings. The cops testified that yes, there were very slight variations, but, nothing significant, and further, the cops testified that had GZ's story remained perfectly consistent without any variances at all, they would have been suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
*The "eyewitnesses" trying to see outside were questionable.
Yes. The Prosecution brought the only eye witness. Under cross examination by the Defense, the witness stated that he saw TM atop GZ, pounding GZ's face and head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
* The trial was half-assed.
No. The trial should never have taken place. But, it was not a sham. Once put on trial, the State was forced to bring its evidence and to tell its story of what it believed happened and why GZ was charged with murder 1 and 2. The State's case was pathetically weak, and the Defense completely destroyed the State's case. State's witnesses in fact supported GZ's version of the incident, and all of the evidence submitted by the State and the Defense supported GZ's version of the incident.
Justice prevailed, despite the malicious attempts of the media and SJWs and the inept Prosecution. As the State was unable to get anywhere near its required burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and as GZ's affirmative defence was more than plausible and supported by virtually all testimony and evidence, GZ was properly acquitted.
That's how the system works. Properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
But I know this is hopeless, since no matter what is said or what is documented, it will be discounted, because some want to believe in their "hero", based upon individual leanings of a person.
Its funny how the ignorant epitomise irony, ignorantly!
Last edited by Salmonburgher; 08-06-2016 at 07:08 AM..
You ought to know that there is a difference between what is true and what is "prosecuteable".
Oh, I do. Do you?
In fact, however, after a lengthy and thorough investigation to try and dig up evidence of GZ's racist attitudes, the Government was forced to admit that not only could they find no evidence of GZ being a racist, in contrast, the discovered that:
- GZ had tutored black kids in the neighbourhood
- GZ led an action to hold the son of a white police chief accountable for beating a homeless black man
- GZ had called the cops at least once to ask the police to do something to make the street safer for kids who were playing in it... The kids were black
Would you like to try again?
Or, may I ask, at what point will the sheer preponderance of facts of GZ's case finally cause you to reconsider your thoughts?
In fact, there was a trail of "debris" starting from the sidewalk T and ending where TM was pounding GZ and where GZ shot TM. The debris included GZ's cell phone and a small flashlight, which he dropped at the T, where TM initially assaulted GZ.
Yes, there was. Photos showing that were admitted into evidence.
TM had wet knees. He had a slightly swollen knuckle. The bullet forensics supported GZ's version of the incident, and an eye witness testified that he saw TM atop GZ, pounding GZ in the face/head.
Initially, the Prosecution withheld color photos of GZ's injuries until well into the trial. GZ had a bloodied and swollen nose, and there was blood dripping and running down the back of his head.
Nonetheless, this was irrelevant, as a traditional affirmative defence of self defence does not require a person to wait until he/she actually suffers grave bodily injury or death before he/she take action to defend him/herself.
That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? Making the victim suffer grave bodily injury or death before permitting the victim to act in self defence?
I suppose you think a girl about to be raped should wait until there is penetration before she resorts to self defence?
Actually, no, he did not. In fact, as revealed at trial, the coppers were quite astonished at how consistent his version held, even after repeated tellings. The cops testified that yes, there were very slight variations, but, nothing significant, and further, the cops testified that had GZ's story remained perfectly consistent without any variances at all, they would have been suspicious.
Yes. The Prosecution brought the only eye witness. Under cross examination by the Defense, the witness stated that he saw TM atop GZ, pounding GZ's face and head.
No. The trial should never have taken place. But, it was not a sham. Once put on trial, the State was forced to bring its evidence and to tell its story of what it believed happened and why GZ was charged with murder 1 and 2. The State's case was pathetically weak, and the Defense completely destroyed the State's case. State's witnesses in fact supported GZ's version of the incident, and all of the evidence submitted by the State and the Defense supported GZ's version of the incident.
Justice prevailed, despite the malicious attempts of the media and SJWs and the inept Prosecution. As the State was unable to get anywhere near its required burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and as GZ's affirmative defence was more than plausible and supported by virtually all testimony and evidence, GZ was properly acquitted.
That's how the system works. Properly.
Its funny how the ignorant epitomise irony, ignorantly!
Stop relitigating the case and just accept that only two people knows what happened....and one of them is dead.
Who did what is irrelevant now. What IS relevant is how does the surviving guy keep himself alive before he gets himself killed and why is he going around introducing himself to people as "hi...my name is George Zimmerman...you know; the guy who killed Trayvon Martin?"
In fact, however, after a lengthy and thorough investigation to try and dig up evidence of GZ's racist attitudes, the Government was forced to admit that not only could they find no evidence of GZ being a racist, in contrast, the discovered that:...
Or, may I ask, at what point will the sheer preponderance of facts of GZ's case finally cause you to reconsider your thoughts?
The DOJ had a Zimmerman Tip Line on its website for two years After the trial ended, hoping they'd find someone, somewhere who'd give them something, anything to help their effort to get him.
Why? We didn't know about either guy until they bumped into each other that night, and I doubt we ever would've.
If given two options:
1. Dying on a sidewalk
or
2. Living like GZ
I'd say living another day is winning. Bigtime winning. For the most part it seems like GZ is living a pretty normal life given the number of people that irrationally hate him. Are you going to be the one to step up and change that?
I'd say living another day is winning. Bigtime winning. For the most part it seems like GZ is living a pretty normal life given the number of people that irrationally hate him. Are you going to be the one to step up and change that?
Change the fact that he lives a normal life. He's walking around like a boss as we speak.
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.
