# Zimmermans Account of Fatal Fight



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok you listen to this Guy,very believable.

Video Shows Zimmerman's Account of Fatal Fight - ABC News

big rockpile


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Okay. I get it.

Obama is black.

You don't like Obama.

Trayvon Martin was black.

Therefore, he's automatically guilty of whatever he was accused of doing.

I GET IT.

eep: :runforhills:


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


Don't have a thing to do with skin color.What Zimmerman is discribing is a Punk Kid that had in his mind to kill Zimmerman and I would have popped a cap in Marten no matter skin color.

big rockpile


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Ah yes,the RACE card-Last refuge of the Obamaites......sad

Gotta to be honest folks-I don't care in the least that a wannabe LEO shot a wannabe gangsta in self defense...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


Okay. I get it.

Obama is black.

Obama can say and do anything he wants and when a person complains it is because they are racist.

Trayvon Martin was black.

Because of his color he should be able to sell drugs, rob, beat, and try to kill other people and when anyone complains they are racist.

It must be nice to have something to accuse other people of when they do not like what you are doing. No matter what you are doing.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


 First off I could give a rat's behind what color the POTUS is. The fact that Obama is black has nothing to do with this case. I was not raised racist, and I think anyone who is racist needs some help. That being said, I had a hispanic man as the best man in my wedding, I have some very good black friends, I have a native american brother in law, I adopted my wife's daughter (who happens to be half hispanic), I have several nieces and nephews who happen to be half hispanic or native american. But I am sick and tired of the Race card being pulled to make excuses for any individual of any race who commits a crime and hides behind their race. Anyone doing such acts, and anyone condoning/defending such acts, should be ashamed of themselves.
The whole race card excuse is almost making me racist.
Actions speak louder then words, when a person does good or bad, the person should be judged on those actions, not the color of their darn skin.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

big rockpile said:


> a Punk Kid that had in his mind to kill Zimmerman


How do you know that?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you know that?


According to Zimmerman he said it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> According to Zimmerman he said it.


Zimmerman can't know what Martin was thinking. He can only draw conclusions from his actions, which is only a guess.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


What the heck does this have to do with Obama?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman can't know what Martin was thinking. He can only draw conclusions from his actions, which is only a guess.


I will say it again a little slower.
He told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.
Zimmerman didn't have to read his mind. He could hear him.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


white than black....but then you probably knew that already. So yes, I do GET IT!

Pushing the racial divide to the edge to get a knee jerk response is so much easier than dealing with the real facts of THIS case.....not that "0" had anything to do with this except to milk it for all the political juice that he could squeeze out of it! Same as you're doing now....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> He told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.


Not exactly. Zimmerman claims that Martin said that. We have to take him at his word, which hasn't been all that reliable so far. Remember, he's fighting to stay out of trouble.

The problem I have with that is that Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman. Even in fits of rage, people normally make their motivations clear.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The tape confirms some things that the other evidence indicated. I think there are two key issues. One is the fact that Martin's girlfriend as falsely portrayed by Crump and still believed by the media, changed her story. The other is we still don't have the firearm test results. The malfunction along with the bullet track shown by the autopsy proves a very close encounter. 

Zimmerman never mentioned that his handgun malfunctioned which supports his statement that he thought Martin had given up when he leaned up. If you're trying to stop someone from killing you, no firearms instructor is going to tell you to fire one time. A double tap is standard, Zimmerman never intended to kill Martin.

I don't think Zimmerman knew the gun malfunctioned. That is why the test is important.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How do you know that?


Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin....and planned on killing him?

Tit-for-tat???


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

thesedays said:


> Okay. I get it.
> 
> Obama is black.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming that was sarcasm. However-
that's just what the Lamestream media would like everyone to believe. As well as Sharpton & crew.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not exactly. Zimmerman claims that Martin said that. We have to take him at his word, which hasn't been all that reliable so far. Remember, he's fighting to stay out of trouble.
> 
> The problem I have with that is that Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman. Even in fits of rage, people normally make their motivations clear.


I think I would rather take Zimmerman at his word rather than some wild idea made up by people setting at home. At least his account agrees with the eye witnesses and the evidence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I think I would rather take Zimmerman at his word rather than some wild idea made up by people setting at home.


There is always the possibility that Zimmerman is saying what he has to say to save his own hide.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> There is always the possibility that Zimmerman is saying what he has to say to save his own hide.


There are millions of possibilities. It's even possible you killed Martin but you have something on Zimmerman and you're blackmailing him. How can we possibly know that isn't the case? Please prove you didn't murder Martin.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There is always the possibility that Zimmerman is saying what he has to say to save his own hide.


There is a bigger probability that Zimmermen is telling the truth.
His story hasn't changed from the first. His story agrees with the eye witness. His story agrees with the evidence.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> *Zimmerman can't know what Martin was thinking*. He can only draw conclusions from his actions, which is only a guess.





Nevada said:


> Not exactly. Zimmerman claims that Martin said that. We have to take him at his word, which hasn't been all that reliable so far. Remember, he's fighting to stay out of trouble.
> 
> *The problem I have with that is that Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman*. Even in fits of rage, people normally make their motivations clear.


Heh.

Z can't know what Martin was thinking yet you can?

Your first statement doesn't pan out, so you throw another one out there and try to make it stick. But while doing so, you seem to think you can know what Martin was thinking while at the same time saying Z could not know.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

A link to all the released interview audio and video.

Home


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> Heh.
> 
> Z can't know what Martin was thinking yet you can?
> 
> Your first statement doesn't pan out, so you throw another one out there and try to make it stick. But while doing so, you seem to think you can know what Martin was thinking while at the same time saying Z could not know.


I didn't suggest that I know what anybody might be thinking. I'm only suggesting that 1) Zimmerman has a motivation to minimize his legal trouble, and 2) Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked makes no sense. The logical conclusion; Zimmerman might be stretching the truth about Martin attacking him unprovoked.

Looking for a plausible explanation for what happened isn't trying to read minds, it's simply a logical way to proceed. Zimmerman's defense depends on convincing the jury that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason at all, but I think that defense is going to be a hard sell to 12 reasonable people.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

time said:


> Heh.
> 
> Z can't know what Martin was thinking yet you can?
> 
> Your first statement doesn't pan out, so you throw another one out there and try to make it stick. But while doing so, you seem to think you can know what Martin was thinking while at the same time saying Z could not know.


*********************************************************
We used to have a phrase that described a type in 'management' who would keep throwing out his idea hoping that it 'stuck' to someone or something....
very similar to those monkeys that would scoop up their own excrement and hurl it at the passing zoo visitors...... 


and both seemed to get the same entertainment value for their efforts!!!:drum::catfight:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Not exactly. Zimmerman claims that Martin said that. We have to take him at his word, which hasn't been all that reliable so far. Remember, he's fighting to stay out of trouble.
> 
> The problem I have with that is that *Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.* Even in fits of rage, people normally make their motivations clear.


Your conjecture's not only just that, it also defies logic. Did you read Martin's Facebook posts and twitters? Crump had to lie for a reason about Martin having a girlfriend when he did not. When you add the adolescent gangsa wannabe posts by Martin, his preocupation with sex (not unusual at that age) and his trash talk with women, there is a motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman that night. 

It was probably done to impress the woman he was talking to. The sad part is she already had a boyfriend and even the hours Martin spent talking to her didn't get him what he wanted. Instead it got him killed. Martin had the perfect situation to attack Zimmerman. He didn't live there and within a short period he would be back home. It's doubtful the police would have found Zimmerman's assailant.

When he attacked Zimmerman, I doubt that he planned to kill him. When he saw the gun and had the upper hand, he saw an opportunity to boost his standing with the ones his mother did not want him being around. He had a shot at truly living up to his assumed nickname, no_limit_nigga.

With two witnesses, Zimmerman had no chance of misleading anyone. He was taken into custody immediately after the shooting and taken to the police station, questioned and given a stress test for lie detection. He had no chance to figure out everything the witnesses saw or heard. At that point if his statement hadn't matched the statements from the witnesses, the cops would have had him in a lie. That did not happen. Otherwise he wouldn't have been released.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Your conjecture's not only just that, it also defies logic. Did you read Martin's Facebook posts and twitters? Crump had to lie for a reason about Martin having a girlfriend when he did not. When you add the adolescent gangsa wannabe posts by Martin, his preocupation with sex (not unusual at that age) and his trash talk with women, there is a motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman that night.
> 
> It was probably done to impress the woman he was talking to. The sad part is she already had a boyfriend and even the hours Martin spent talking to her didn't get him what he wanted. Instead it got him killed.


I wasn't aware that Martin was on the phone during the struggle. If he wasn't, your suggestion that he did those things to impress the girl kind of falls apart.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked makes no sense.


Zimmerman attacking Martin does not make sense either.
Why would a smaller man attack a larger younger man?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman attacking Martin does not make sense either.
> Why would a smaller man attack a larger younger man?


Zimmerman had a gun. He also showed repeated poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and was badge heavy (even without a badge). Zimmerman was a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman attacking Martin does not make sense either.
> Why would a smaller man attack a larger younger man?


The smaller man had a firearm.He would be a wuss to be afraid.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman had a gun. He also showed repeated poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and was badge heavy (even without a badge). Zimmerman was a disaster waiting to happen.


What about Martin?
He definately showed repeated poor judgement. Kicked out of school several times. Was kicked out when the incident occured.
Also had a complete lack of respect for authority.
Martin also used drugs, was a thief, and had attacked other people.

Martin was a wanna be gansta. The only way he would not have ended up dead very young was if he was in jail. He was just a time bomb.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> *I wasn't aware *that Martin was on the phone during the struggle. If he wasn't, your suggestion that he did those things to impress the girl kind of falls apart.


that you are unaware of......'course that doesn't slow
you down in the least on commenting on them. 
If you're going to be the 'expert'....do the research first!
I see the same type of mind-set when Pelosi commented about the Obama health care plan....

"we have to pass it so we can see what's in it." Does this 'affliction' run deep in the party of the kkk?



Nevada said:


> Zimmerman had a gun. He also showed repeated poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and was badge heavy (even without a badge). Zimmerman was a disaster waiting to happen.


See my previous post concerning the monkeys......
looks like we now have a case of severe diarrhea in the primate house......
Are we having trouble getting enough together to throw at passerbys?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I wasn't aware that Martin was on the phone during the struggle. If he wasn't, your suggestion that he did those things to impress the girl kind of falls apart.


Jeez, Nevada, you're not that forgetful. Crump's account of the supposed girlfriend's telephone conversation with Martin up and until the confrontation was the basis for the faked story he shopped to Reuters. Once Reuters broke the story the rest of the media took the bait and went after Zimmerman. If the media had known the true history of Martin rather than the choirboy construct Crump built, everyone would have smelled hot smoking brakes as the media did a WTH. Today you still see references to Martin's girlfriend and other facts which have long since been disproven.

We know how that worked out with one network editing the 911 call and another photoshopping Zimmerman's picture so that he truly looked white. Then you had the media produced hullabaloo over the lack of any injuries to Zimmerman. Those manipulations and literal shading of the story served to further demonize Zimmerman which was Crump's first goal along the road to a payoff. 

The key was the bogus girlfriend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> What about Martin?
> He definately showed repeated poor judgement. Kicked out of school several times. Was kicked out when the incident occured.
> Also had a complete lack of respect for authority.
> Martin also used drugs, was a thief, and had attacked other people.
> ...


Martin isn't on trial. I doubt that Martin's judgment will be a factor in the defense. There's too big of a chance it will work against Zimmerman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you know that?


Forensics show he TRIED


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Zimmerman can't know *what Martin was thinking*. He can only draw conclusions from his actions,





> The problem I have with that is that Martin had* no motivation* to kill Zimmerman. Even in fits of rage, people normally* make their motivations clear*


Banging his head into the sidewalk showed he HAD enough "motivation" to attack
The fact YOU don't know what it was doesn't mean it didn't exist.

And you keep saying *"to kill"*, but that isn't a REQUIREMENT for self defense (Deadly Force), 

All that is REQUIRED is a reasonable FEAR of "death *or serious bodily injury*"


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Seems to me Zimmerman,s story is a bit too perfect, for one that was just in an altercation that ended up with someone dead. When things happen that fast, I believe its a bit hard to have that clear of a recollection. he had every detail down pat...hmmmmmmm. If every fight between two people, ends up with one person dead....there sure would be a lot more dead people...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darren said:


> Jeez, Nevada, you're not that forgetful. Crump's account of the supposed girlfriend's telephone conversation with Martin up and until the confrontation was the basis for the faked story he shopped to Reuters. Once Reuters broke the story the rest of the media took the bait and went after Zimmerman. If the media had known the true history of Martin rather than the choirboy construct Crump built, everyone would have smelled hot smoking brakes as the media did a WTH. Today you still see references to Martin's girlfriend and other facts which have long since been disproven.
> 
> We know how that worked out with one network editing the 911 call and another photoshopping Zimmerman's picture so that he truly looked white. Then you had the media produced hullabaloo over the lack of any injuries to Zimmerman. Those manipulations and literal shading of the story served to further demonize Zimmerman which was Crump's first goal along the road to a payoff.
> 
> The key was the bogus girlfriend.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

pancho said:


> I will say it again a little slower.
> He told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.
> Zimmerman didn't have to read his mind. He could hear him.


Well, then there's getting his head beat into a sidewalk.........


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Zimmerman was just trying to give a warning shot and Martin jumped in the way of the bullet.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> Seems to me Zimmerman's story is a bit too perfect, for one that was just in an altercation that ended up with someone dead. When things happen that fast, I believe its a bit hard to have that clear of a recollection. he had every detail down pat...hmmmmmmm. If every fight between two people, ends up with one person dead....there sure would be a lot more dead people...


You could tell he didn't have things down pat from his interaction with the police and at least the second on scene witness. You can tell he was shocked after being sucker punched and immediately faced with trying to cope with Martin sitting on him, who was trying to keep him from calling for help and slamming his head into the concrete. 

Zimmerman didn't have time or opportunity to make up a story because of the two witnesses and the immediate arrival of the police after the shot. In a very short time he went from being surprised by Martin, to getting punched and knocked down, to fighting for his life with Martin's hands over his mouth and nose. Zimmerman's only bit of luck that night was being able to get his gun while Martin was probably using his weak side hand to do the same.

Given how many things happened in such a short period, I can understand some confusion on Zimmerman's part as shown in the videos. I've experienced the same thing. Some times you're trying to figure out what happened after you've seen or experienced something. The shorter the time period and the more things packed into that short period adds to the confusion. 

Contrary to seeing Zimmerman as having his "story" down pat, I see something that reflects the reality of what he, and to some extent, I have experienced.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Banging his head into the sidewalk showed he HAD enough "motivation" to attack
> The fact YOU don't know what it was doesn't mean it didn't exist.
> 
> And you keep saying *"to kill"*, but that isn't a REQUIREMENT for self defense (Deadly Force),
> ...


You keep jumping the time line forward... move it back to when Zimmerman got out of vehicle, which clearly the prosecutor will do. Now Martin has "motivation" to defend himself, stranger (with a gun) is following him (stalking). I think the jury will find that Martin had reasonable evidence to believe Zimmerman was up to no good. We will never know who touched who first, but the jury will now know that Zimmerman has a history of lying to the judge as proven by the money deal with wife.

For sake of this discussion, we may agree that both man and boy "used deadly force." The question remains who started the fight? When did the fight start? Did it start seconds before the gun went off? No, it started when Zimmerman chased Martin. Zimmerman confesses on the video he got out and followed Martin. This is when the conflict began. No evidence has been presented showing Martin did something to trigger Zimmerman to follow him. Only Zimmerman has shown evidence of aggression (from the start), that's what the jury will hear.

Some may say, why did Martin start "running" away from Zimmerman? Who cares?!! Is it against the law to go jogging? Is the sport of running illegal?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

suzfromWi said:


> Seems to me Zimmerman,s story is a bit too perfect, for one that was just in an altercation that ended up with someone dead. When things happen that fast, I believe its a bit hard to have that clear of a recollection. he had every detail down pat...hmmmmmmm. If every fight between two people, ends up with one person dead....there sure would be a lot more dead people...


Your probably right. Zimmerman is a freaking genious. He may even have some psychic ability. I can only speak for myself, but I would have a very difficult time concocting a story that perfectly matches witness's I've never met and some I never knew were witnesses in only a few minutes. And his telepathy powers must be immense having the ability to get all the witness to tell the same basic story. I wonder why he doesn't use his abilities on the prosecuter? The abilities worked well enough on the police.

Or there could be something else at play here. I suppose this killing could have been pre-planned. It must have taken months for each person involved to learn their part.

:drum:


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

FreeRanger said:


> You keep jumping the time line forward... move it back to when Zimmerman got out of vehicle, which clearly the prosecutor will do. Now Martin has "motivation" to defend himself, stranger (with a gun) is following him (stalking). I think the jury will find that Martin had reasonable evidence to believe Zimmerman was up to no good. We will never know who touched who first, but the jury will now know that Zimmerman has a history of lying to the judge as proven by the money deal with wife.
> 
> For sake of this discussion, we may agree that both man and boy "used deadly force." The question remains who started the fight? When did the fight start? Did it start seconds before the gun went off? No, it started when Zimmerman chased Martin. Zimmerman confesses on the video he got out and followed Martin. This is when the conflict began. No evidence has been presented showing Martin did something to trigger Zimmerman to follow him. Only Zimmerman has shown evidence of aggression (from the start), that's what the jury will hear.
> 
> Some may say, why did Martin start "running" away from Zimmerman? Who cares?!! Is it against the law to go jogging? Is the sport of running illegal?


A bunch of bull.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FreeRanger said:


> Some may say, why did Martin start "running" away from Zimmerman? Who cares?!! Is it against the law to go jogging? Is the sport of running illegal?


That's really the difference of opinion on this issue. While some advocate the right to use deadly force, a few seem to ignore the right of an unarmed person to walk the streets in safety.

What's more, if gun advocates aren't willing to respect the rights of unarmed Americans they are headed for a showdown in court. They won't like that.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's really the difference of opinion on this issue. While some advocate the right to use deadly force, a few seem to ignore the right of an unarmed person to walk the streets in safety.
> 
> What's more, if gun advocates aren't willing to respect the rights of unarmed Americans they are headed for a showdown in court. They won't like that.


The right to own and carry a gun is right there, easy to read, in the constitution. Not likely that will change.
More states are going to some type of castle law. Not likely that will stop either as the crime rate drops when normal people are allowed to carry a gun.

Many people are just like me, they will carry as long as they live. Courts or no courts. We don't like to give the criminals the advantage.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That's really the difference of opinion on this issue. While some advocate the right to use deadly force, a few seem to ignore the right of an unarmed person to walk the streets in safety.
> 
> What's more, if gun advocates aren't willing to respect the rights of unarmed Americans they are headed for a showdown in court. They won't like that.


More bull.

An unarmed person does not have the right to attack anyone, armed or not.

The difference of opinion is not a matter of being armed or not. Zimmerman would be as justified to use deadly force whether he was armed or not.

As the child molester in texas found out, deadly force need not include a firearm.

Your post is a clear indication that your stake in this issue is not with the use of deadly force, it is with Zimmermans right to carry a firearm. That being the case explains why you are able to discount the facts of the case and prefer to inject your conjecture.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The right to own and carry a gun is right there, easy to read, in the constitution. Not likely that will change.
> More states are going to some type of castle law. Not likely that will stop either as the crime rate drops when normal people are allowed to carry a gun.
> 
> Many people are just like me, they will carry as long as they live. Courts or no courts. We don't like to give the criminals the advantage.


OK, let's say that Zimmerman is found not guilty by asserting the Florida stand-your-ground law. Then lets say that Martin's family files suit in federal court alleging that Trayvon Martin's 14th Amendment rights were denied by Florida's stand-your-ground law, on the basis that the law denied Martin the right to life without due process of law. That could set the stage for sweeping gun use reform.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> OK, let's say that Zimmerman is found not guilty by asserting the Florida stand-your-ground law. Then lets say that Martin's family files suit in federal court alleging that Trayvon Martin's 14th Amendment rights were denied by Florida's stand-your-ground law, on the basis that the law denied Martin the right to life. That could set the stage for sweeping gun use reform.


More bull.

Martin forfeited his rights when he attacked zimmerman. You have no rights while you are commiting a crime.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> Martin forfeited his rights when he attacked zimmerman. You have no rights while you are commiting a crime.


More to the point, Martin has no rights because he's dead. Martin will never be able to tell his side of the story. Zimmerman's word will be the last word. That's convenient for the shooter, don't you think?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> More to the point, Martin has no rights because he's dead. Martin will never be able to tell his side of the story. Zimmerman's word will be the last word. That's convenient for the shooter, don't you think?


No. Martin had no rights before death. He is dead because he forfieted his rights. Not the other way around.

Your theory on it being a firearms issue is ridiculous.

Are you going to argue that an unarmed person that used deadly force to defend himself is also guilty of violating the attackers 14th Amendment right to life?

Are going to advocate that no one can walk the streets because it might lead to the violation of the 14th?

Ridiculous.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Nevada here is another way that I look at it&#8230;.

So let just say Zimmerman is acquitted. At that point, any person who doesn&#8217;t like another type of person will be able to kill at will. 

Example: A person develops a dislike for Zimmerman (or &#8220;his kind&#8221 can leave their home armed and head into an area where Zimmerman is known to travel. For this story I will call them the &#8220;tracker&#8221; who is armed, and the &#8220;victim&#8221; who is just living his normal life. When the tracker observes a victim heading into a direct that may offer cover, the tracker follows the victim. Once the two of them reach a point where the tracker feels safe approaching the victim, the tracker makes contact with the victim; the victim reacts; the tracker shoots gun killing the victim. Now it&#8217;s tracker&#8217;s word against the dead victim&#8217;s, oh but wait dead men can&#8217;t talk. 

I will admit there are a few valid reasons for a person to conceal carry a weapon. Zimmerman did not have a valid reason. A neighborhood watch person is not a law enforcement officer. Definition of watch: observe, view and study. Definition of stalk: follow, pursue and hunt. In a civil society watching human behavior is OK, stalking a human is a disorderly conduct charge. 

Let me give Time's response: Bull, Bull and Bull.... 

To that I say, Zimmerman forfeited his rights when he started stalking Martin. Zimmerman was the first to commit a crime; he has admitted it on tape. We only have Zimmerman&#8217;s word that Martin committed a crime. And now the judge and jury know that Zimmerman will lie in his defense, he has already been caught doing so with the bond hearing.

Time: Bull, and bull again&#8230;


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

FreeRanger said:


> Nevada here is another way that I look at itâ¦.
> 
> So let just say Zimmerman is acquitted. At that point, any person who doesnât like another type of person will be able to kill at will.
> 
> ...


Yep, more bull.

I'll offer you some Bengay. Surely as far as your stretching, you must have pulled something.

If Zimmerman was guilty of stalking, as you claim, why is he not charged for it?

Let me clue you in. If a stalking charge would stick, it would make the prosecutions job very easy. Also, it add another another charge of possesion of a firearm in the commision of a crime.

The simple answer is, Zimmerman commited no crime when he followed Martin.

Now, use the Bengay where it hurts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FreeRanger said:


> Nevada here is another way that I look at itâ¦.
> 
> So let just say Zimmerman is acquitted. At that point, any person who doesnât like another type of person will be able to kill at will.
> 
> Example: A person develops a dislike for Zimmerman (or âhis kindâ) can leave their home armed and head into an area where Zimmerman is known to travel. For this story I will call them the âtrackerâ who is armed, and the âvictimâ who is just living his normal life. When the tracker observes a victim heading into a direct that may offer cover, the tracker follows the victim. Once the two of them reach a point where the tracker feels safe approaching the victim, the tracker makes contact with the victim; the victim reacts; the tracker shoots gun killing the victim. Now itâs trackerâs word against the dead victimâs, oh but wait dead men canât talk.


It's not so far-fetched. In the Raul Rodriguez case (Houston, TX), the defendant calmly announced that he felt threatened before shooting 3 people, killing one. There was no question that the victims were unarmed. Moreover, the defendant had previously told a neighbor that the stand-your-ground law allowed anyone to kill anyone, as long as the shooter claimed he felt threatened.

Rodriguez was so confident that his claim that he felt threatened would prevent a conviction that he video taped the incident, and even shot the victims while on the phone with the police dispatcher. See for yourself.

Houston 'stand your ground' defendant found guilty - Houston Chronicle

Rodriguez was found guilty of murder about a week ago.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

I don't think any jury is going to have trouble understanding that Zimmerman left his home with a loaded gun looking for trouble. Martin left his home looking for a drink and a snack. That is why since the beginning of this story, I have stated murder 1 should be the charge.

I am not against conceal carry or weapons. I own a few guns, I don't have a cc permit because 1. I don't need it and 2. I am not paying for it.

If the environment around me gets to the point where I need to carry a gun, I will just carry it, to heck with any laws at that point, it will be concealed until I need to use it. 

Defending Zimmerman is not going to get the results gun owners want.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's really the difference of opinion on this issue. While some advocate the right to use deadly force, a few seem to ignore the right of an unarmed person to walk the streets in safety.
> 
> What's more, if gun advocates aren't willing to respect the rights of unarmed Americans they are headed for a showdown in court. They won't like that.





pavement, then they better be willing for a showdown with my Smith & Wesson;
we'll see who then has respect for themselves in the morning.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> pavement, then they better be willing for a showdown with my Smith & Wesson;
> we'll see who then has respect for themselves in the morning.


You are missing the point, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman by pounding Zimmerman's head against the pavement, then Martin (if he was smart enough and had a good lawyer) could have just declared "self defense." Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Heck yes if you were a teenage boy being stalked by a stranger, you would have fought for your life. It would have been Martin's word against Zimmerman (the dead man carrying a gun following a young man around.) Can you say definition of a predator? That woud be Zimmerman.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK, let's say that Zimmerman is found not guilty by asserting the Florida stand-your-ground law. Then lets say that Martin's family files suit in federal court alleging that Trayvon Martin's 14th Amendment rights were denied by Florida's stand-your-ground law, on the basis that the law denied Martin the right to life without due process of law. That could set the stage for sweeping gun use reform.


Zimmerman will be found not guilty. It is just a matter of getting to court. Even with a hand picked jury that will try to convict him he will win on appeal. It is very simple.

Martin's family will probably file suit on everyone they possible can. They didn't care enough about their kid to raise him right but they will try to make every cent off of him they can. They should fail in that also. 

This case isn't as important as you think it is.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

It sure would help the conservation if those who choose to post would, at least, read the transcripts of the 911 calls and watch the videos of Zimmerman.
Everyone has an opinion. It sure makes it a lot easier if people knew the facts.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

There is a reason that the laws of antiquity respect and promote the concept of "innocent until _proven_ guilty", over guilty until proven innocent.

Some participants in this debate would do well to familiarize themselves with those ancient underpinnings.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK, let's say that Zimmerman is found not guilty by asserting the Florida stand-your-ground law. Then lets say that Martin's family files suit in federal court alleging that Trayvon Martin's 14th Amendment rights were denied by Florida's stand-your-ground law, on the basis that the law denied Martin the right to life without due process of law. That could set the stage for sweeping gun use reform.


Stand your ground does not apply. Zimmerman is not claiming he felt threatened and therefore used deadly force. He is claiming he was ATTACKED. At the point Martin put his hands on Zimmerman the stand your ground law was no longer applicable. 

But the fact is neither of these matter a whit in the case against him. He is charged with second degree murder and, as I have posted *several times*, that has a VERY SPECIFIC set of items the STATE must PROVE. If they fail to prove even one of them they lose and Zimmerman is a free man. If you go back and read one of those post you will see what I'm talking about. The biggest hurdle, as I see it, is the very first thing the state must prove, that there was a crime committed at all. If even one juror has a reasonable thought that the shooting was in self defense then he has to say that the state did not prove a crime was committed (as you know the use of deadly force in self defense is NOT a crime), as required by the law, and must vote to acquit.

Also, seeing as how there is ZERO evidence, that we have seen, to show that Zimmerman did anything other than defend himself I don't see a civil rights suit going anywhere. But to be safe if I were Zimmerman I'd have my lawyers have a lawsuit ready to go against Martian's estate. Then I'd let the family know if they sued him he'd counter sue, seeing as how a court had already ruled Zimmerman was the one under attack I can see him winning hands down.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> I don't think any jury is going to have trouble understanding that Zimmerman left his home with a loaded gun looking for trouble. Martin left his home looking for a drink and a snack. That is why since the beginning of this story, I have stated murder 1 should be the charge.


So everyone who leaves their home carry a weapon is "looking for trouble"? You MIGHT be able to convince a New England jury of that but try that with a jury in Florida (or much any other must issue CCW state) and you'd be laughed out of court.




FreeRanger said:


> I am not against conceal carry or weapons. I own a few guns, I don't have a cc permit because 1. I don't need it and 2. I am not paying for it.


I suggest you read the story at this link
Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pay special attention to the part about Dr. Suzanna Hupp and think about not needing it.




FreeRanger said:


> If the environment around me gets to the point where I need to carry a gun, I will just carry it, to heck with any laws at that point, it will be concealed until I need to use it.


And when you use it you will be charged. If you are convicted or not depends on the jury. Seeing as how you are illegally carrying the odds are you'll lose and face a civil trial which will take everything you own on top of your prison time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> There is a reason that the laws of antiquity respect and promote the concept of "innocent until _proven_ guilty", over guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> Some participants in this debate would do well to familiarize themselves with those ancient underpinnings.


They should also familiarize themselves with the fact that its up to the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To do this it must prove specific points based on the law, every point.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

FreeRanger said:


> Some may say, why did Martin start "running" away from Zimmerman? Who cares?!! Is it against the law to go jogging? Is the sport of running illegal?


It's completely irrelevant. Martin wasn't running away when he was shot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> There is a reason that the laws of antiquity respect and promote the concept of "innocent until _proven_ guilty", over guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> Some participants in this debate would do well to familiarize themselves with those ancient underpinnings.


A claim of self defense is a form of affirmative defense.

_Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof._
Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So everyone who leaves their home carry a weapon is "looking for trouble"? You MIGHT be able to convince a New England jury of that but try that with a jury in Florida (or much any other must issue CCW state) and you'd be laughed out of court.


He didn't say that, and I don't think that either. But I do believe that Zimmerman was looking for trouble. I don't believe that Zimmerman was carrying a gun for self defense, I believe he carried it because he wanted to use it.

Okay fine, Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it. Now he's facing the hassle of his life. This trial isn't going to be the cakewalk you suggest it might. So far he can't even get bail.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

FreeRanger said:


> You are missing the point, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman by pounding Zimmerman's head against the pavement, then Martin (if he was smart enough and had a good lawyer) could have just declared "self defense." Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Heck yes if you were a teenage boy being stalked by a stranger, you would have fought for your life. It would have been Martin's word against Zimmerman (the dead man carrying a gun following a young man around.) Can you say definition of a predator? That woud be Zimmerman.


dilegence in checking Martin's prior "history".....when this info comes out in court....
it will be crystal clear to the jury, exactly who the "predator" was that fateful night.

BTW: In case your'e still unsure who I'm speaking of.....it's NOT Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> dilegence in checking Martin's prior "history".....when this info comes out in court....
> it will be crystal clear to the jury, exactly who the "predator" was that fateful night.
> 
> BTW: In case your'e still unsure who I'm speaking of.....it's NOT Zimmerman.


I doubt that you'll see that. The "Martin had it coming" strategy is risky. I believe that Zimmerman's interests would be better served concentrating on a strategy of self defense, a claim that he didn't know Martin was unarmed, and regret for a sad outcome to an unfortunate situation.

Martin's past might come up in trial, but I can tell you right now that Zimmerman's lawyer isn't going to dwell on it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> You keep jumping the time line forward... move it back to when Zimmerman got out of vehicle, which clearly the prosecutor will do. *Now Martin has "motivation" to defend himself, stranger (with a gun) is following him (stalking).* I think the jury will find that Martin had reasonable evidence to believe Zimmerman was up to no good. We will never know who touched who first, but the jury will now know that Zimmerman has a history of lying to the judge as proven by the money deal with wife.
> 
> For sake of this discussion, we may agree that both man and boy "used deadly force." The question remains who started the fight? When did the fight start? Did it start seconds before the gun went off? No, it started when Zimmerman chased Martin. Zimmerman confesses on the video he got out and followed Martin. This is when the conflict began. No evidence has been presented showing Martin did something to trigger Zimmerman to follow him. *Only Zimmerman has shown evidence of aggression* (from the start), that's what the jury will hear.
> 
> Some may say, why did Martin start "running" away from Zimmerman? Who cares?!! Is it against the law to go jogging? Is the sport of running illegal?


Once more you show you *don't REALLY understand* any of this.

Martin couldn't have KNOWN Zimmerman had a gun at that time, and being FOLLOWED is NOT a "motivation to defend" yourself

There is NO EVIDENCE of any "aggression" from Zimmerman, since Martin had no other injuries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK, let's say that Zimmerman is found not guilty by asserting the Florida *stand-your-ground* law.
> Then lets say that Martin's family files suit in federal court alleging that Trayvon Martin's 14th Amendment rights were denied by Florida's stand-your-ground law, on the basis that the law denied Martin the right to life without due process of law.
> That could set the stage for sweeping *gun use reform*.


"Stand your ground" has NO application in this case.
You're just parroting without understanding the law

Martin's family "can" sue, but they *won't win* since your premise is laughable at best

You keep wanting to turn this into a* gun control* issue, when it's a simple case or *JUSTIFIABLE* HOMICIDE


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> More to the point, Martin has no rights because he's dead. *Martin will never be able to tell his side of the story*. Zimmerman's word will be the last word. That's convenient for the shooter, don't you think?


The FORENSICS and EYEWITNESSES both tell "his side"


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

And doubting Zimmerman had a Piece for Self Defence is off the wall I carry and yes it's for Self Defence,so does my wife.

big rockpile


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A claim of self defense is a form of affirmative defense.
> 
> _Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense* bears the burden of proof*._
> Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That means nothing in FL.
The STATE bears the burden of proof in a MURDER case.

The Plaintiff here can't prove THEIR case with the evidence they have, so Zimmerman won't have to add anything at all


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I doubt that you'll see that. The "Martin had it coming" strategy is risky. I believe that Zimmerman's interests would be better served concentrating on a strategy of self defense, a claim that he didn't know Martin was unarmed, and regret for a sad outcome to an unfortunate situation.
> 
> Martin's past might come up in trial, but I can tell you right now that Zimmerman's lawyer isn't going to dwell on it.


would be bringing these "facts" into evidence......as to whether anyone needs to dwell on it once the jury has heard it, is immaterial at that point. The state is not going to paint the picture that Martin was a saint (despite what the foaming at the mouth liberal media would have you believe with their doctored tapes and slanted/distorted reporting of the alleged storyline).....I'll say it once again.....he was railroaded for political purposes only......and I'll be very surprised if he isn't found not guilty in all accounts.

BTW: I never said, nor did I suggest that Martin had it coming....but nice try at putting words into my mouth.
All I said was that if Martin's priors come in; his gangsta wannabe persona......the jury will draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> being FOLLOWED is NOT a "motivation to defend" yourself


That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A claim of self defense is a form of affirmative defense.
> 
> _Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof._
> Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Because the state went with M2 *Zimmerman doesn't have to do a thing*. The state must provide evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt on every point. One of the points the state must prove is Zimmerman DID NOT act in self defense. They also have prove that Zimmerman meant to kill him when he shot him. Read the law. Heaven knows I have posted it enough.

As I have stated before unless there is some major evidence the state is holding the odds are the judge will rule the state did not reach their burden of proof as soon as it rest its case. As it stands there is NO evidence that the shooting was NOT self defense.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He didn't say that, and I don't think that either. But I do believe that Zimmerman was looking for trouble. I don't believe that Zimmerman was carrying a gun for self defense, I believe he carried it because he wanted to use it.


Again what anyone thinks has nothing to do with anything in the case. All that counts is what the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.




Nevada said:


> Okay fine, Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it. Now he's facing the hassle of his life. This trial isn't going to be the cakewalk you suggest it might.


What admissible evidence do you see the state can put up to PROVE M2 according to the letter of the law? Not what you think, not what it looks like but what can be proven by the evidence.




Nevada said:


> So far he can't even get bail.


I have a problem with this because bail is supposed to not be given either when the accused is a flight risk or a danger to the public. Not because the judge got his undies in a wad. Do you think Zimmerman is either?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


How do you know. Maybe Zimmerman called him the N word and that set him off. Maybe Zimmerman insulted his manhood and that set him off.

The problem the state has is it has to prove that Zimmerman not only was the aggressor but meant to kill Martin when he shot him.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


Well just maybe Martin was up to No Good and Zimmerman was interfering with this.So there is your motivation for him acting like a Punk which didn't come out the way he planed.

big rockpile


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

watcher said:


> As I have stated before unless there is some major evidence the state is holding the odds are the judge will rule the state did not reach their burden of proof as soon as it rest its case.


I think you're correct up until this part. Judges rarely do this unless it is even more glaringly obvious than this case. They don't want to be painted as soft on crime so they let the jury decide. And juries are often stupid. There should be no need for an affirmative defense because the state probably can't prove the elements of murder 2, but that is all speculation based on how the court system is supposed to work, not how it actually does.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


Speaking of motivation, Nevada, why did Crump lie about Martin talking to his girl friend immediately before the confrontation? Why did he lie about the woman being too upset to go to Martin's funeral?

Once again did you read Martin's facebook posts and twitters?

And how do you know that Martin did not have motivation? Are you aware Martin had around ten cents in his pocket when his belongings were inventoried? Seems a bit strange that his dad didn't leave him any money when he went out on the town with his fiance.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> According to Zimmerman he said it.


What would you expect Zimmerman to say? Since he's been accused of murder he's not going to say anything that might incriminate him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> I will say it again a little slower.
> He told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.
> Zimmerman didn't have to read his mind. He could hear him.


According to Zimmerman.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> And how do you know that Martin did not have motivation?


I don't know for sure that Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman. I just don't know what it might be.



Darren said:


> Are you aware Martin had around ten cents in his pocket when his belongings were inventoried? Seems a bit strange that his dad didn't leave him any money when he went out on the town with his fiance.


What's strange about a broke teenager?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had *no motivation to attack* Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


But he DID attack, as *shown by the evidence* and witnesses.

Your "no motivation" mantra IGNORES reality, and is therefore meaningless.

He had no REASONABLE motivation, but DID IT anyway.

Also note, I only used the word as part of a QUOTE.

I don't care if you think he had (or needed) "motivation" since he DID IT


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> What would you expect Zimmerman to say? Since he's been accused of murder he's not going to say anything that might incriminate him.


Zimmerman wasn't "ACCUSED" of anything when he told his story, nor BECAUSE of what he told.

In fact, they weren't going to charge him at all BECAUSE of what he (and the evidence) said.

He was "accused" as a* political* act due to media pressure


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> I think you're correct up until this part. Judges rarely do this unless it is even more glaringly obvious than this case. They don't want to be painted as soft on crime so they let the jury decide. And juries are often stupid. There should be no need for an affirmative defense because the state probably can't prove the elements of murder 2, but that is all speculation based on how the court system is supposed to work, not how it actually does.


I think if he is convicted it will be over turned. We don't know all the evidence but there would have to be something huge for the state to even to reach the burden of proof it is required to meet to get a M2 conviction. Again its just my opinion but a judge which knowingly lets a trial continue when the state has not met its burden of proof needs to have his conduct reviewed. His job is to uphold the law and the law says if the state has not met its burden of proof the case must be dismissed.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's what I've been trying to tell you. Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, so Zimmerman's story makes no sense.


That is beyond belief if you've read Martin's posts and twitters and are remotely familar with the phone conversation with his supposed, according to Crump, girlfriend.

1. The kid was dealing drugs as evidenced by stuff found at school and his posts.

2. The kid wrote that he wanted to move on to another drug, which causes aggression in some, so he couldn't be roped (caught with weed).

3. He was trying to build a reputation for himself among his "pack" which his mother was trying to keep him away from. That's why he was in a strange neighborhood. How else do you explain his choice of no_limit_nigga as a handle? That screams attitude to me which is confirmed by the pictures the media has ignored which are available in many places on the internet.

4. He had supposedly taken a swing at a bus driver based on a conversation with his brother.

5. He was video taped fighting with another black kid being encouraged by a crowd.

6. He was broke.

7. There's a good chance he was p'd off at his banishment by his mother, his abandonment by his father when he went out with his fiance and his situation in general. 

What you had was a very troubled kid who was caught on video at a 7-Eleven appearing to be disoriented at best. 

The kid was more than likely p'd at the world, trying to impress a woman throughout the day as he talked to her, and broke besides. You can see that when he pulls out the little money he had and counts it out for the 7-Eleven clerk. Along comes Zimmerman on the way home from work who spots Martin and wonders why there's someone he's never seen before in the neighborhood which has had burglaries and one home invasion. And the stranger is acting odd shuffling around while it's raining.

I realize, Nevada, you cannot put yourself in Martin's shoes and imagine his mindset like you apparently claim you can do with Zimmerman.

The kid had plenty of reasons, to him, to confront Zimmerman and take his anger out on a smaller man while beating him to a pulp. There's no question Martin wasn't enraged. Even with a witness, he continued the assault on Zimmerman. That was not a rational act. That was an act of unleashed anger. Martin had plenty of motivation. At his age kids don't always do things that are rational to adults.

The no_limit_nigga thought he found a convenient punching bag to pound on to relieve his frustration with the world. The result was that Zimmerman helped Martin with his frustration and attitude. It's gone permanently.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I ask those of you who think Zimmerman should be convicted, or stands a chance of so, tell me what evidence we know of which the state can use to prove its case.

Let's look at the Florida law on second degree murder. To get a conviction for second degree murder the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It must prove all of them, two out of three means it loses.


_1. (Victim) is dead._

I'll give you this one, they have the body.


_2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant)._

There's a problem. The state must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense because otherwise there was no criminal act. Note that Zimmerman does not have prove the shooting was legal. What evidence can you point to to prove this?


_3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life._

Here's are two problems. The first is they prove the killing was unlawful. What evidence can you point to to prove this?

Plus note the word "and" which means not only must that be proven but the following. That Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind". Which leads us to the second problem here; the phrase "depraved mind". Let us see what that means under FL law. We find that "depraved mindâ is defined by Floridaâs jury instructions. 


_Three elements must be present:_

Note the wording. All three of the following must be met. If the state fails to prove even one of these it fails to meet its burden of proof for murder. 


_* A âperson of ordinary judgmentâ would know the act, or series of acts, âis reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to anotherâ;_

Again I'll give you this one, a 'reasonable man' would know that shooting someone is reasonably certain to kill or harm another.


_* The act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ; and_

Well there's a problem here. The state must prove Zimmerman either harbored ill will, hatred or spite for Martin or that he acted with evil intent. Your evidence to prove either of these?


_* The act is âof such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.â_

Another problem. What evidence can you point to to show that Zimmerman's actions "indicates an indifference to human life"?


If you can't prove each and EVERY one of these you will have failed to reach its burden of proof which means the case should be dismissed with prejudice and Zimmerman released never to be tried again without the defense needing to put any argument before the court.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

watcher said:


> I think if he is convicted it will be over turned. We don't know all the evidence but there would have to be something huge for the state to even to reach the burden of proof it is required to meet to get a M2 conviction. Again its just my opinion but a judge which knowingly lets a trial continue when the state has not met its burden of proof needs to have his conduct reviewed. His job is to uphold the law and the law says if the state has not met its burden of proof the case must be dismissed.


I agree, but I don't have that much faith in our "justice" system. I won't be surprised if Zimmerman gets convicted and sentenced to the maximum. Not right, but like I said, I don't have much faith in judges and juries these days.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> What would you expect Zimmerman to say? Since he's been accused of murder he's not going to say anything that might incriminate him.


As BFF points out. He was not accused of murder when he said it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

People can read the transcripts. They can see the evidence. They know the prosecutor swore under oath they didn't have anything that would show Zimmerman lied. They know the only reason Zimmerman is in jail is because of the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.
The only reason some people are calling for Zimmerman to stay in jail and be prosecuted is because of their own prejudices.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> They know the prosecutor swore under oath they didn't have anything that would show Zimmerman lied. They know the only reason Zimmerman is in jail is because of the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.
> The only reason some people are calling for Zimmerman to stay in jail and be prosecuted is because of their own prejudices.


One thing is very clear; Zimmerman allowed his wife to lie to the court of keep bail low. What makes you think he wouldn't lie about his innocence?

Zimmerman is sitting in jail because of a lie. He did it to himself. It's not Jackson, Sharpton, or prejudice. Zimmerman did this to himself. Maybe if he shows a little judgment and listens to his lawyer things will go better for him, but so far he hasn't been good about doing either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> One thing is very clear; Zimmerman allowed his wife to lie to the court of keep bail low. What makes you think he wouldn't lie about his innocence?
> 
> Zimmerman is sitting in jail because of a lie. He did it to himself. It's not Jackson, Sharpton, or prejudice. Zimmerman did this to himself. Maybe if he shows a little judgment and listens to his lawyer things will go better for him, but so far he hasn't been good about doing either.


Care to take a stab at answering my questions about evidence to back up the charges?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> One thing is very clear; Zimmerman allowed his wife to lie to the court of keep bail low. What makes you think he wouldn't lie about his innocence?
> 
> Zimmerman is sitting in jail because of a lie. He did it to himself. It's not Jackson, Sharpton, or prejudice. Zimmerman did this to himself. Maybe if he shows a little judgment and listens to his lawyer things will go better for him, but so far he hasn't been good about doing either.


Look at it from Zimmermans point of view.

He was being a good neighbor. He volunteered to protect the community he lived in. He saw a suspicious person in his neighborhood. He called the police to report this person. While trying to keep the person in sight until the police got there he was attacked and beaten. With his life in danger Zimmerman did what he was forced to do, he protected himself.
The police did an investigation and talked to eye witnesses. In their opinion Zimmermen did not break the law.
Because the man who attacked him was black and he was called a white man some of the race baiters saw a chance to get on TV. A new investigator was called in and he was charged with murder. Any sane person could tell the only reason he was charged is to appease the colored people.

Zimmerman was forced to come up with bail money. He did. The judge decided to punish him all he could as he knew the charge would never stick.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Care to take a stab at answering my questions about evidence to back up the charges?


Not really. I would prefer to wait for trial to see what they have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> One thing is very clear; Zimmerman allowed his wife to lie to the court of keep bail low. What makes you think he wouldn't lie about his innocence?
> 
> Zimmerman is sitting in jail because of a lie. He did it to himself. It's not Jackson, Sharpton, or prejudice. Zimmerman did this to himself. Maybe if he shows a little judgment and listens to his lawyer things will go better for him, but so far he hasn't been good about doing either.


He's in jail because of a JUDGE who wanted *publicity*.

His bond was NORMAL for the *alleged* offense, whether he *"lied"* about his fnances or not.

That remains to be seen

He doesn't NEED to "lie about his innocence".
The EVIDENCE proves that


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Look at it from Zimmermans point of view.
> 
> He was being a good neighbor. He volunteered to protect the community he lived in. He saw a suspicious person in his neighborhood. He called the police to report this person. While trying to keep the person in sight until the police got there he was attacked and beaten. With his life in danger Zimmerman did what he was forced to do, he protected himself.


Are you suggesting that Zimmerman deserves some sort of consideration for being a volunteer?



pancho said:


> The police did an investigation and talked to eye witnesses. In their opinion Zimmermen did not break the law.


Not true. The lead police detective thought he should have been charged.



pancho said:


> Zimmerman was forced to come up with bail money. He did. The judge decided to punish him all he could as he knew the charge would never stick.


Zimmerman made a conscious decision to take the chance of misleading the court. He got caught. The judge did what any judge would do under the circumstances.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not really. *I would prefer to wait* for trial to see what they have.


In other words, you don't HAVE any evidence to prove *ANY* of your theories, because you realize* none exists*


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> One thing is very clear; Zimmerman allowed his wife to lie to the court of keep bail low. What makes you think he wouldn't lie about his innocence?
> 
> Zimmerman is sitting in jail because of a lie. He did it to himself. It's not Jackson, Sharpton, or prejudice. Zimmerman did this to himself. Maybe if he shows a little judgment and listens to his lawyer things will go better for him, but so far he hasn't been good about doing either.


Zimmerman's wife didn't lie nor did Zimmerman allow her to lie. She simply didn't answer the quesion. She volunteered to call a family member during the hearing and find out how much money was in the account. The judge declined. The judge though a lack of his own thoroughness opened himself up to criticism once the extent of the donations became public.

O'Mara immediately informed the judge about the donations once he knew. The judge then dithered for how long? It's interesting when you take Martin's side by attacking Zimmerman's family and their judgement when Martin's lack of judgement that led to his death is so obvious. You not only have a problem with Zimmerman you have a problem with the truth since you obviously avoid facts and evidence that don't support your viewpoint.

The shame here is on the judge. Zimmerman not only fully cooperated with the police from the time they first responded. he did not ask for a lawyer during the four hours of questioning. Nor did he immediately lawyer up aferwards. Even when he had to relocate he kept in constant contact with the police. When required to present himself, he did so. The man had access to about $200,000. For that, I'm sure he could have relocated someplace without an exradition treaty with this country. 

The judge should be disciplined.

Zimmerman has complied with every requirement. He and his wife were destitue. Due to people with your attitude or worse he and his wife can't appear in public nor hold a job. I hope Crump gets sued for the misfortune he's caused by his falsified press release and the deaths that result. Crump knowingly lied. That's premeditation. I hope he's disbarred too. The man makes scummy lawyers look saintly.

You've bought into the myth created by a scumbag lawyer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not true. The lead police detective thought he should have been charged.


But the PROSECUTOR knew there wasn't enough EVIDENCE

We had *this* conversation months ago


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's in jail because of a JUDGE who wanted *publicity*.
> 
> His bond was NORMAL for the *alleged* offense, whether he *"lied"* about his fnances or not.


I don't think so. I believe that Zimmerman is an extreme flight risk, considering his poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and disregard for the law. I believe that bail should be set, but I also believe that it should be sufficiently high to prevent him from running.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Zimmerman's wife didn't lie nor did Zimmerman allow her to lie. She simply didn't answer the quesion.


The judge doesn't see it that way. He thinks he was deliberately deceived. We'll see how Zimmerman does with that this week. I'm looking for bail to be at least doubled, maybe tripled, and if he acts like too much of a jerk he'll get no bail at all.

Zimmerman needs to listen to his lawyer and show a little bit of good judgment. From here on out has word his to be as good as gold. There no room for letting the court believe falsehoods through silence. I promise you that the judge will have no patience for that after what's happened.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada, with all that the Zimmerman family have been through and Zimmerman's complete cooperation without a lawyer from the night of the incident forward, you really believe he's a flight risk????? That's absurd!!!!!

If Zimmerman thought he had a problem, he wouldn't have cooperated with the police without a lawyer. I can't believe someone who committed a criminal act would undergo four hours of interrogation and reenact the incident without a lawyer present. If Zimmerman is a criminal he has to be one of the dumbest. In this day and age no one puts themselves in jeopardy with the law without a lawyer present. The only other alternative is he's an honest person caught up in a tragedy initiated by a juvenile delinquent. Zimmerman's problem is he expected fair treatment from the justice system. The lesson here is that justice is no longer blind throughout this country. Instead it serves special interests and is easily swayed by political correctness and by prosecutors who put their own interests before justice. 

In many ways this is a modern day. Dreyfus Affair. We can't accept that Martin and the others like him are the products of failed government programs which have encouraged a victim mentality along the way to destroying many families. Add a lack of parenting and we are producing young people with a lack of respect for the law who think nothing of joining in violent acts. It's a sad statement that prison time earns young men respect in some communities. Your attitude is what essentially condones and encourages the cancer that's ravaging this country.

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't think so. I believe that Zimmerman is an extreme flight risk, considering his poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and disregard for the law. I believe that bail should be set, but I also believe that it should be sufficiently high to prevent him from running.


that I've pointed out to you on more than several occasions in the past....it AMAZES
me that you continue to use them in cases where you are swayed by emotion, rather than "facts." Scratch that part about emotion....replace that with racism......or put them both together for an emotional racist says "I don't think".

Nothing else makes any sense. And you haven't either when taking part in this discussion.:bored:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada, with all that the Zimmerman family have been through and Zimmerman's complete cooperation without a lawyer from the night of the incident forward, you really believe he's a flight risk????? That's absurd!!!!!


It doesn't matter what I think. What's important is what Judge Lester thinks.

_The judge wrote that he weighed all of the evidence, and most of the evidence was against Zimmerman. âMost importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process,â Lester wrote._
Judge: "Zimmerman Does Not Respect the Law" | Kulture Kritic | Kulture Kritic


So there you have it. What do you think the judge is thinking about Zimmerman? That's not from reading the newspaper either.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter what I think. What's important is what Judge Lester thinks.
> 
> _The judge wrote that he weighed all of the evidence, and most of the evidence was against Zimmerman. âMost importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process,â Lester wrote._
> Judge: "Zimmerman Does Not Respect the Law" | Kulture Kritic | Kulture Kritic
> ...


So it is your opinion the judge has already decided the verdict on Zimmerman without ever going to court and hearing the evidence?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> So it is your opinion the judge has already decided the verdict on Zimmerman without ever going to court and hearing the evidence?


Of course not. The judge has only revoked bail and issued terse words for Zimmerman's poor judgment. A jury will decide Zimmerman's verdict anyway, not the judge. But Zimmerman has not made a good impression on the judge so far.

I'll be watching the judge's demeanor during the bail hearing this week. I suspect we'll hear more terse words before bail is decided.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think so. I believe that Zimmerman is an extreme flight risk, considering *his poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and disregard for the law*. I believe that bail should be set, but I also believe that it should be sufficiently high to prevent him from running.


Those are all *YOUR* OPINION, and not fact.

Just where do you think he can "run" when the whole world knows him now?

Be serious. He has NO *reason* to run since he didn't do anything wrong


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What do you think the judge is thinking about Zimmerman?


He was thinking " I'll show him he can't fool with ME"

Judges have large egos, and also love FREE publicity


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter what I think. What's important is what Judge Lester thinks.
> 
> _The judge wrote that he weighed all of the evidence, and most of the evidence was against Zimmerman. âMost importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that* he does not properly respect the* law or the* integrity of the judicial process**,â* Lester wrote._ That's an ego alert!
> Judge: "Zimmerman Does Not Respect the Law" | Kulture Kritic | Kulture Kritic
> ...


I'd be surprised if Zimmerman had any respect left for the judicial process at this point given the railroading he's experienced. Lester just proved he's another cog in the machinery to lynch Zimmerman. I'm wondering if Zimmerman is going to be _lestered_ during the entire trial. O'mara needs to look into dumping Lester. The man's ego is going to prevent Zimmerman from getting a fair trial.

O'mara shouldn't mention this outlandish ruling but he does need to seek a change of venue.

At least the judge managed to drive Zimmerman's donations higher. I was pleasantly surprised to see that donations were averaging $1000 per day until the judge made an azz out of himself. Then they jumped up. 

Here's hoping that O'mara uses that money to hire all the technical experts like Ayoob for firearms needed to destroy the prosecution. Imagine if Dershowiz got involved. Corey would probably have a breakdown. Every time the legal system tries to stick it to Zimmerman, people send more money. By the time this case goes to trial next year, Zimmerman should have close to a million.

I think the judge showed his hand.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

What's troubling here is the judge has already formed some type of opinion. He is supposed to be fair and unbiased. His job is to administer a punishment IF a jury finds Zimmerman guilty. The judge in this case is clearly not unbiased.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What do you think Judge Lester would appreciate most for his next court session. A pair of clown shoes or a Bozo the clown mask?

I wonder if this comes in an adult size for the judge.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think so. I believe that Zimmerman is an extreme flight risk, considering his poor judgment, lack of respect for authority, and disregard for the law. I believe that bail should be set, but I also believe that it should be sufficiently high to prevent him from running.


Why do you think this? He was out on bail for quite some time & went nowhere.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Why do you think this? He was out on bail for quite some time & went nowhere.


I think Nevada might be thinking what he would do in the same case.
That might be the problem with his thinking. He is going by what he would do if he was ever facing the same things Zimmerman had to face then and now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> What's troubling here is the judge has already formed some type of opinion. He is supposed to be fair and unbiased. His job is to administer a punishment IF a jury finds Zimmerman guilty. The judge in this case is clearly not unbiased.


The judge believes that he was deceived, and he believes that Zimmerman was involved in that deceit. How would you react to deception if you were a judge?


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The judge believes that he was deceived, and he believes that Zimmerman was involved in that deceit. How would you react to deception if you were a judge?


 Is there PROOF he was deceived? I know he FEELS deceived, but feelings should mean nothing. In a court of law it's supposed to be about PROOF. Maybe i'm wrong, but I haven't seen any PROOF he was deceived, only speculation.
If there is PROOF? I would suspect there would be charges filed of some sort because of it. I am not a lawyer so I have no clue what it would be, maybe contempt of court or some such thing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> Is there PROOF he was deceived? I know he FEELS deceived, but feelings should mean nothing. In a court of law it's supposed to be about PROOF. Maybe i'm wrong, but I haven't seen any PROOF he was deceived, only speculation.
> If there is PROOF? I would suspect there would be charges filed of some sort because of it. I am not a lawyer so I have no clue what it would be, maybe contempt of court or some such thing.


Yes, the jail phone records where Zimmerman & his wife discussed his finances are proof. And yes, there have been criminal charges filed against his wife, and she's been arrested & charged with perjury. 

What George Zimmerman did by allowing his wife & lawyer to tell the judge false information about his finances might not rise to the level of perjury, but it's impossible for the judge to ignore.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Yes, the jail phone records where Zimmerman & his wife discussed his finances are proof. .


It is my understanding that the prosecution alleges they discussed finances in "code". Okay, charge her/him whatever, go to trial and if found guilty then the judge has proof. As it stands right now it's only an allegation. So right now the judge is still operating under an assumption of zimmerman lying. Am I missing something??


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Yes, the jail phone records where Zimmerman & his wife discussed his finances are proof. And yes, there have been criminal charges filed against his wife, and she's been arrested & charged with perjury.
> 
> What George Zimmerman did by allowing his wife & lawyer to tell the judge false information about his finances might not rise to the level of perjury, but it's impossible for the judge to ignore.


Zimmerman was not charged with perjury. He did nothing illegal.

It's funny you stress this issue so much as a credibility issue, yet you ignore the media and crump lies and don't question their credibility. It reflects on your own credibility.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> So right now the judge is still operating under an assumption of zimmerman lying. Am I missing something??


No, George Zimmerman is not accused of lying. He's accused of sitting in court and allowing his wife to lie, and allowing his lawyer to give the court false information by not fully informing his lawyer about his finances. No allegations of perjury have been made against George Zimmerman.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No, George Zimmerman is not accused of lying. He's accused of sitting in court and allowing his wife to lie, and allowing his lawyer to give the court false information by not fully informing his lawyer about his finances. No allegations of perjury have been made against George Zimmerman.


 Forgive me if I'm out of touch here, my wife and kids seem to control the remote more then I. 
So George isn't charge with perjury, but his wife is. She is charged with perjury because she is accused lying about finances via phone conversations with George which are Alleged to have been discussed in code. If I have that right, then there is still no proof that Zimmerman lied or had anyone else lie for him, only speculation. 
If the judge is operation under that speculation, he is not doing his job fairly, he is biased.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> She is charged with perjury because she is accused lying about finances via phone conversations with George which are Alleged to have been discussed in code.


In the first place, they have the jailhouse phone recordings. There is no question about what he & his wife said. The "code" was pretty crude. Instead of saying $100,000 they said $1.00, and $80,000 became 80 cents. The actual balances reflected the code. It didn't take a genius to figure out a code like that.

But she's not accused of lying in the phone conversation, she's accused of lying in court. The phone conversation proves that she knew about the PayPal money before testifying, yet she claimed that she didn't under oath. 



jaredI said:


> If I have that right, then there is still no proof that Zimmerman lied or had anyone else lie for him, only speculation.


The recorded jailhouse conversation is absolute proof that George Zimmerman knew about the PayPal money, yet sat there and allowed his wife & lawyer to tell the court otherwise. There is no question that Zimmerman allowed them to lie for him. Apparently that's not enough to charge George Zimmerman with anything, but it was enough to PO the judge.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No, George Zimmerman is not accused of lying. He's accused of sitting in court and allowing his wife to lie, and allowing his lawyer to give the court false information by not fully informing his lawyer about his finances. No allegations of perjury have been made against George Zimmerman.


Ridiculous.

Zimmerman has his fifth ammendment right to remain silent. He is not required nor expected to speak in court. To retain his fifth ammendment right does not automatically indicate wrongdoing. 

The Judge is simply using him as a scapegoat because he feels personal animosity because of the negative press he recieved for setting bond.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> In the first place, they have the jailhouse phone recordings. There is no question about what he & his wife said. The "code" was pretty crude. Instead of saying $100,000 they said $1.00, and $80,000 became 80 cents. The actual balances reflected the code. It didn't take a genius to figure out a code like that.
> 
> But she's not accused of lying in the phone conversation, she's accused of lying in court. The phone conversation proves that she knew about the PayPal money before testifying, yet she claimed that she didn't under oath.
> 
> ...


Again, it is neither deceitfull nor illegal to remain silent. It is a constitutional right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> Ridiculous.
> 
> Zimmerman has his fifth ammendment right to remain silent. He is not required nor expected to speak in court. To retain his fifth ammendment right does not automatically indicate wrongdoing.


No. In a bail hearing the defendant is required to make a full disclosure about his finances. That obviously didn't happen here, and he was caught through jailhouse recordings. The result is that Zimmerman's bail was revoked. That's to be expected.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> Again, it is neither deceitfull nor illegal to remain silent. It is a constitutional right.


I suppose so, but the judge isn't required to grant bail either. Zimmerman remained silent, and his bail was revoked. He'll have the same right to silence in the bail hearing this week. But after a month in jail I'm guessing he'll decide to make a full & honest disclosure about his finances this time.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

With donations coming in at $1,000 per day or more, neither of the Zimmerman's know how much they have at any specific time. That is why Ms. Zimmerman volunteered her brother as a contact for the judge. If I was a judge, I'd wonder why a brother would know more about the Zimmerman's finances than the Zimmermans. It's a question that is beyond obvious. So how come the judge didn't ask? Was he in a hurry to leave to make his tee off time? Was he running on ho-hum cruise control? What was going on with the judge that he didn't catch that?

Without an explanation the only answer is that the judge was inattentive at best and lazy at worse. The Zimmermans only screwup is they inadvertantly exposed the judge for a fool.

O'mara needs to dump Judge mo-Lester. The mo is short for moron.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> With donations coming in at $1,000 per day or more, neither of the Zimmerman's know how much they have at any specific time. That is why Ms. Zimmerman volunteered her brother as a contact for the judge. If I was a judge, I'd wonder why a brother would know more about the Zimmerman's finances than the Zimmermans. It's a question that is betond obvious. So how come the judge didn't ask. Was he in a hurry to leave to make his tee off time? Was he running on ho-hum cruise control? What was going on with the judge that he didn't catch that?


She still should have told the judge what she knew. There's no excuse for anything less in a bail hearing.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No. In a bail hearing the defendant is required to make a full disclosure about his finances. That obviously didn't happen here, and he was caught through jailhouse recordings. The result is that Zimmerman's bail was revoked. That's to be expected.


No. A defendant is never required to disclose anything. I've stood in bail hearings. I've never said a word.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

pancho said:


> So it is your opinion the judge has already decided the verdict on Zimmerman without ever going to court and hearing the evidence?


sounds just like Nevada, does'nt he? Don't confuse me with the "facts"....my mind is already made up!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> enough to* PO the judge*


NOW you've hit on the REAL reason the bond was revoked.

It's not about "lies".


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Courts and PA play by their own rules depending on how much pressure is put on them.

I know for a fact a PA asking a wife if her DH could come up with such and such Bail? She said No so that is what Bail was set at,there for breaking one right setting absorbanent Bail.Her DH goes to Court and Judge drops Bail down a third of original amount.DH comes up with Bail.One would think Good he could go Home until next Court Date.Nope he is held for two more weeks,another Right broke.Goes before the Circuit Judge which was different than the one that set Bail.His Lawyer explained that he had came up with Bail.She asked if this is true why is he being held,that him being held is illegal? Lawyer said he didn't know.He was finally released.

Learned never to trust the system.If your arrested don't say nothing,get a Lawyer no matter cost.Don't look Good with PD.

Never say a word in Court make sure Lawyer knows everything,including if there is suspicion of Courts or PA playing Games.Only talk if advice by Lawyer,only answer questions at a minimum NO MORE!

Oh most time with Plead Deal its something the PA has added on but can't make stick anyway.

big rockpile


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> NOW you've hit on the REAL reason the bond was revoked.
> 
> It's not about "lies".


Exactly! Judge Mo-Lester overreacted to what he thought was a sign of disrespect. If Zimmerman respected the judge before, he certainly doesn't now and for good reason. The judge just showed the world he's a pompous fool.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Well lookee here! The dishonorable judge Kenneth R. Mo-Lester has some issues. One of which is an overblown sense of self-importance based on his rating for temperment. After 15 years on the bench, you'd think the man would have learned something. Looks like whoever appointed him went to the trouble of picking a biased judge.

The Robing Room: FL State Judges


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *He's accused* of sitting in court and allowing his wife to lie, and allowing his lawyer to give the court false information by not fully informing his lawyer about his finances.


No, he's not.

That's all in YOUR mind

If Zimmerman were "accused", you'd be able to cite the specific LAW he broke.
All he did was sit there (and make the judge angry)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> She still should have told the judge *what she knew*


In telling him to "contact the brother", didn't she in *fact* ACKNOWLEDGE there was another account, and she DIDN"T KNOW the balance?

I don't see the "lie"
Perhaps you could show it to us?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In telling him to "contact the brother", didn't she in *fact* ACKNOWLEDGE there was another account, and she DIDN"T KNOW the balance?
> 
> I don't see the "lie"
> Perhaps you could show it to us?


She'll have a chance to make her case in court.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> She'll have a chance to make her case in court.


What do you think about the dishonorable judge Mo-Lesters history of bias in criminal cases? At his point I think Zimmerman has shown better judgement than Mo-Lester.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Well, Zimmerman's lawyer admits that Zimmerman's failure to advise the court of the existence of the donated funds misled the court, that it was wrong, and that Zimmerman is prepared to take responsibility for doing it.

_"Mr. Zimmerman's failure to advise the court of the existence of the donated funds at the initial bail hearing was wrong and Mr. Zimmerman accepts responsibility for his part in allowing the court to be misled as to his true financial circumstances," O'Mara wrote in the motion._
Defense attorney: Zimmerman poses no threat, should be released on bail again - U.S. News

That pretty well agrees with what I've been saying. Really though, if Zimmerman had any hope of getting out of jail he needed to impress on the judge that he's deserving of bail. Admitting fault and taking responsibility was the only realistic way of doing that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Really though, if Zimmerman had any home of getting out of jail he needed to impress in the judge that he's deserving of bail. Admitting fault and taking responsibility was the only realistic way of doing that.


That's pretty much true even if he did nothing wrong. If you don't say what the judge wants to hear, whether you mean it or not, he makes your life miserable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> That's pretty much true even if he did nothing wrong. If you don't say what the judge wants to hear, whether you mean it or not, he makes your life miserable.


Yes, that's pretty much always true, even for people who did nothing wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> She'll have a chance to make her case in court.


 
So you won't admit she TOLD him about the other account?
You still want to pretend she "mislead" him?

You're a HOOT! 

*



Admitting fault and taking responsibility was the only realistic way of doing that

Click to expand...

*Another way of putting that is* SAYING* *what the Judge wants to hear*, whether it's true or not.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What a mess! Based on the judge's reputation, O'mara sacrificed the wife. That's the only thing the lawyer could do. I'm still wondering why the judge didn't ask the obvious question when Zimmerman's wife made it obvious there was a doubt about the money available. I thought the courts had employees that looked into defendant backgrounds. Zimmerman's website was obvious. 

Neither the judge nor someone else did their job. Since judges don't put up with that incompetency from support staff, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge knew about the website for donations and deliberately didn't take Zimmerman's wife up on her offer to confirm the money wtih the brother. O'mara needs to request the staff report from the judge.

Am I the only one who doesn't think the judge's action during the bail hearing doesn't pass he sniff test?

With a self-centered, biased judge, there's a real question of Zimmerman getting a fair trial. Between Corey's pandering and the judge's issues, Zimmerman's got a problem. The saving factor is the judge and Corey have inadvertantly helped Zimmerman by providing the impetus for jacking up donations.

I thought bail was only about flight risk. I didn't know it was about screwing over a defendant.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> What a mess! Based on the judge's reputation, O'mara sacrificed the wife. That's the only thing the lawyer could do. I'm still wondering why the judge didn't ask the obvious question when Zimmerman's wife made it obvious there was a doubt about the money available. I thought the courts had employees that looked into defendant backgrounds. Zimmerman's website was obvious.
> 
> Neither the judge nor someone else did their job. Since judges don't put up with that incompetency from support staff, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge knew about the website for donations and deliberately didn't take Zimmerman's wife up on her offer to confirm the money wtih the brother. O'mara needs to request the staff report from the judge.
> 
> ...


A person would begin to think that the judge is going to punish Zimmerman all he is able to because he knows they do not have a chance of convicting him.
If he is hard enough on Zimmermen he is more likely to think about a plea bargain.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> A person would begin to think that the judge is going to punish Zimmerman all he is able to because he knows they do not have a chance of convicting him.
> If he is hard enough on Zimmermen he is more likely to think about a plea bargain.


More likely the judge is reacting more to being deceived than his flight risk. I believe Zimmerman is a flight risk, mainly because of his poor judgment, but I also think that setting reasonable bail for the situation will keep him here.

I suspect that there will be plea negotiations in connection with this case, but I believe the defense will turn it down. The defense seems to have a reasonable expectation of acquittal, while the prosecution isn't going to offer a deal without at least a modest jail term. I doubt that they can find enough common ground to come to an agreement.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> More likely the judge is reacting more to being deceived than his flight risk. I believe Zimmerman is a flight risk, mainly because of his poor judgment, but I also think that setting reasonable bail for the situation will keep him here.
> 
> I suspect that there will be plea negotiations in connection with this case, but I believe the defense will turn it down. The defense seems to have a reasonable expectation of acquittal, while the prosecution isn't going to offer a deal without at least a modest jail term. I doubt that they can find enough common ground to come to an agreement.


Zimmerman isn't going anywhere even if they let him loose without bail. If he was going to run he would have already cleaned out the account and run when he was told he was going back to jail.

Sure there will be plea negotiations. The prosecutor knows there isn't any way they can convince any 12 normal people Zimmerman is guilty. They will continue to punish Zimmerman in every way they can to try to get him thinking they have a case. They think if they can be tough enough he will be much more likely to accept a plea.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Based on everything that's come out so far, the only thing Zimmerman is guilty of is being naive. Just because he's a do-gooder doesn't give him magical get out of jail free powers. 

I can't believe he not only spent four hours talking to the police and taking thier form of a lie detector test but then he reenacted the incident without a lawyer. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is. By now Zimmerman should understand he cannot trust the justice system in Florida.

With Crump's manipulations, the media trying their dammnedness to hang him, the federal government trying to play the race card, and having a biased judge appointed to try him, Zimmerman needs to smarten up.

Looking back I'm surprised he had sense enough to fire the two bozo lawyers that jumped in.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I was finally able to watch the video and am puzzled about something. When Zimmerman was walking through the scenario he originally walked past where the sidewalk went between the apartments. How did he end up back tracking to where he says he was beat up? Did he walk back to Martin or did Martin drag him? He doesn't say, but he did show that he had walked past the sidewalk going between the buildings saying he was walking towards his truck and heard Martin ask if he had a problem. Why did he go between the buildings towards Martin instead of just continuing on to his truck once he said he didn't have a problem, especially since he knew the police were already on their way?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> I was finally able to watch the video and am puzzled about something. When Zimmerman was walking through the scenario he originally walked past where the sidewalk went between the apartments. How did he end up back tracking to where he says he was beat up? Did he walk back to Martin or did Martin drag him? He doesn't say, but he did show that he had walked past the sidewalk going between the buildings saying he was walking towards his truck and heard Martin ask if he had a problem. Why did he go between the buildings towards Martin instead of just continuing on to his truck once he said he didn't have a problem, especially since he knew the police were already on their way?


You might want to watch it again. And watch/listen to the interviews. Read the written statement.

I'd explain it but he does a good job himself. Several times.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not really. I would prefer to wait for trial to see what they have.


So do you agree that with the known evidence they can't reach their burden of proof?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not true. The lead police detective thought he should have been charged.


A few words of advice: Never, never, NEVER get any type of advice on the law from a LEO. 

I haven't read but what evidence did the cop use to bring him to this conclusion? Or did he just 'feel' that Zimmerman should be charged?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter what I think. What's important is what Judge Lester thinks.
> 
> _The judge wrote that he weighed all of the evidence, and most of the evidence was against Zimmerman. âMost importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process,â Lester wrote._
> Judge: "Zimmerman Does Not Respect the Law" | Kulture Kritic | Kulture Kritic
> ...


IOW, the judge has his panties in a wad because he feels someone DARED to not hold him and his almighty court with the proper deference and pay proper homage the the great Oz of the bench. Because of this Zimmerman is suddenly a danger to society and must have his bail revoked, got it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course not. The judge has only revoked bail and issued terse words for Zimmerman's poor judgment. A jury will decide Zimmerman's verdict anyway, not the judge. But Zimmerman has not made a good impression on the judge so far.
> 
> I'll be watching the judge's demeanor during the bail hearing this week. I suspect we'll hear more terse words before bail is decided.


Sounds to me like Zimmerman may already have grounds for appeal seeing as how the judge has already shown prejudiced by making statements which show disdain for the accused.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The judge believes that he was deceived, and he believes that Zimmerman was involved in that deceit. How would you react to deception if you were a judge?


I don't think I'd act like a toddler who was tricked out of his cookie. After a statement like that if Zimmerman's lawyers don't at the very least move to have this judge removed or better yet get a change of venue I see another case for appeal if he loses; inadequate defense.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suppose so, but the judge isn't required to grant bail either. Zimmerman remained silent, and his bail was revoked. He'll have the same right to silence in the bail hearing this week. But after a month in jail I'm guessing he'll decide to make a full & honest disclosure about his finances this time.


I don't know about FL but IIRC in most states judges ARE required to grant bail unless there is reason to believe the accused is a flight risk or a threat.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, Zimmerman's lawyer admits that Zimmerman's failure to advise the court of the existence of the donated funds misled the court, that it was wrong, and that Zimmerman is prepared to take responsibility for doing it.
> 
> _"Mr. Zimmerman's failure to advise the court of the existence of the donated funds at the initial bail hearing was wrong and Mr. Zimmerman accepts responsibility for his part in allowing the court to be misled as to his true financial circumstances," O'Mara wrote in the motion._
> Defense attorney: Zimmerman poses no threat, should be released on bail again - U.S. News
> ...


Sounds more like butt kissing to me. They are trying to make the great Oz of the bench think they really do think his poop doesn't stink therefore he should use his use his almighty power to allow the poor genuflecting commoner to have bail. Maybe if the lawyer told the judge Zimmerman was willing to kiss his bare buttocks on the court house steps at noon with press present Zimmerman could get released O.R.

This entire thing is making me more cynical about our current 'justice' system and I didn't think that was possible.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> More likely the judge is reacting more to being deceived than his flight risk.


So you are saying the judge is using his emotions not the law to make decisions? Makes a pretty good case for bias does it not?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman isn't going anywhere even if they let him loose without bail. If he was going to run he would have already cleaned out the account and run when he was told he was going back to jail.
> 
> Sure there will be plea negotiations. The prosecutor knows there isn't any way they can convince any 12 normal people Zimmerman is guilty. They will continue to punish Zimmerman in every way they can to try to get him thinking they have a case. They think if they can be tough enough he will be much more likely to accept a plea.


I'm starting to think Zimmerman is going to come out of this a very rich man. If he can find either an old or a high profile lawyer who isn't afraid of the system I see him being able to win massive amounts of money in a civil rights case based on judicial abuse.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> Based on everything that's come out so far, the only thing Zimmerman is guilty of is being naive. Just because he's a do-gooder doesn't give him magical get out of jail free powers.
> 
> I can't believe he not only spent four hours talking to the police and taking thier form of a lie detector test but then he reenacted the incident without a lawyer. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is. By now Zimmerman should understand he cannot trust the justice system in Florida.
> 
> ...


I tell people all the time, the only thing you tell the police is you will talk to them ONLY in the presence of your lawyer. Nothing the police like more than someone who just won't shut up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I don't know about FL but IIRC in most states judges ARE required to grant bail unless there is reason to believe the accused is a flight risk or a threat.


The US constitution provides for reasonable bail for non-capital offenses, but a judge can deny bail altogether of he has cause.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Everytime the NEWS drifts away from the bare facts in this case, it begins to look bad for Zimmerman. Latest news is that Zimmerman failed twice to properly identify himself to Martin. Big deal, kick him off your Neighborhood Watch Club. But it has nothing to do with feeling threatened while laying on his back getting his face punched.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Everytime the NEWS drifts away from the bare facts in this case, it begins to look bad for Zimmerman. Latest news is that Zimmerman failed twice to properly identify himself to Martin. Big deal, kick him off your Neighborhood Watch Club. But it has nothing to do with feeling threatened while laying on his back getting his face punched.


I will have to remember that next time I am facing a crook. Properly identify myself. That should stop all wanna be ganstas in their tracks.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

More evidence released today. An investigative report pretty much says what I've been suggesting all along.

_The police detective concluded that Zimmerman's actions were "inconsistent" with someone who was afraid of Martin, and that Zimmerman had several chances to end the encounter without violence._
Police say Zimmerman had chances to defuse situation before shooting Martin - Open Channel

The article at that link goes into more detail on those allegations. Here it is if you have interest to read on.

_"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, was afraid of Martin," Det. Chris Serino wrote. "Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject._

_"Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter. On at least two occasions, George Martin Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin. Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Benjamin Martin, and that of George Michael Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Michael Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity._


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Of course not. The judge has only revoked bail and issued terse words for Zimmerman's poor judgment. A jury will decide Zimmerman's verdict anyway, not the judge. But Zimmerman has not made a good impression on the judge so far.
> 
> I'll be watching the judge's demeanor during the bail hearing this week. I suspect we'll hear more terse words before bail is decided.


At trial, the prosecution presents their case, and then the defense theirs. Between those two points, there is a time when the defense can ask the judge to dismiss charges because there is insufficient evidence to sustain the charges.

It is routine for the defense to ask this, no matter what evidence was presented.

There have been cases where the judge _has_ dismissed the charges because the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof.

The key issue here is the phrase "depraved indifference." The prosecution must be able to _show_ depraved indifference -- and they won't be able to.

If they had charged him with manslaughter as the detective had wanted to the night of the incident, I think that would been a slam dunk, but unless they amend the charges to give the jury a choice, I don't think the defense is even going to have to present a case -- the evidence just isn't there, no matter what you perceive.



Nevada said:


> More evidence released today. An investigative report pretty much says what I've been suggesting all along.
> 
> _The police detective concluded that Zimmerman's actions were "inconsistent" with someone who was afraid of Martin, and that Zimmerman had several chances to end the encounter without violence._
> Police say Zimmerman had chances to defuse situation before shooting Martin - Open Channel
> ...


Not really, actually.

All along, you've said that it was all Zimmerman's fault, that he was a racist and a bigot, and that he was never in any real danger.

The report, or at least the parts that the article deigned to reprint, says that the incident might meet the level of manslaughter -- _you've_ always said it was _murder_.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> All along, you've said that it was all Zimmerman's fault, that he was a racist and a bigot, and that he was never in any real danger.


I don't believe that Zimmerman was in real danger, and I believe that he could have easily avoided the confrontation. But I never said that Zimmerman was a racist or bigot. I have suggested that Martin may have reacted to racial fears, but I have no idea if Zimmerman might be racist.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I didn't see any new evidence there. Basically what we all already knew. He could have avoided the whole thing if he had just stayed in his truck like scared little girl.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I didn't see any new evidence there. Basically what we all already knew. He could have avoided the whole thing if he had just stayed in his truck like scared little girl.


My bias against Zimmerman in this case comes from observing him. His poor judgement has been obvious, but I can see a frustrated cop in him too.

But I have formed a basic premise about this incident. It is my believe, perhaps unfounded, that Zimmerman wanted to use his gun. Not necessarily against anyone of a particular race or nationality, but against a wrongdoer (i.e., a crook -- one of "them").

Zimmerman was not afraid if Martin, not in the least. I believe that Zimmerman pursued Martin, then confronted him. I don't know how the fight started, but it's apparent that Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman after the fight started. Zimmerman was furious that Martin had gotten the best of him in the fight, then pulled the gun and shot in anger.

Murder 2 may be a reasonable charge if it can be established that he wanted to use the gun on somebody, which I believe was the case. However, that's only my theory. I don't see how to prove that with what we know today.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Everytime the NEWS drifts away from the bare facts in this case, it begins to look bad for Zimmerman. Latest news is that *Zimmerman failed twice to properly identify himself to Martin*. Big deal, kick him off your Neighborhood Watch Club. But it has nothing to do with feeling threatened while laying on his back getting his face punched.


 
There's no *requirement* for him to have done that

It was thrown into the middle af a story about how he* PASSED all "lie dector" tests,* and NO ONE thinks he lied.

(And for Nevada, that investigator suggested MANSLAUGHTER charges aven though there's no EVIDENCE to support that either)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *I don't believe that Zimmerman was in real danger*, and I believe that he could have easily avoided the confrontation. But I never said that Zimmerman was a racist or bigot. I have suggested that Martin may have reacted to racial fears, but I have no idea if Zimmerman might be racist.





> An investigative report pretty much says what I've been suggesting all along.


*
*

It doesn't MATTER what *YOU* believe, but only what* ZIMMERMAN* believed at the time

Haveing your head slammed into the ground after youi've already had your nose broken IS "*real danger*", even if you PRETEND to not to think so

As for the report, it's just MORE OPINION, and not necessarily *factual.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that Zimmerman was in real danger, and I believe that he could have easily avoided the confrontation. But I never said that Zimmerman was a racist or bigot. I have suggested that Martin may have reacted to racial fears, but I have no idea if Zimmerman might be racist.


LOL You ran a LOT of circles to avoid addressing the heart of *the actual statment* didn't you?



> Originally Posted by *Narshalla*
> _All along, you've said that *it was all Zimmerman's fault*,_


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't MATTER what *YOU* believe, but only what* ZIMMERMAN* believed at the time


Zimmerman didn't believe he was in any danger.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Anyone with a touch of &#8220;street wisdom&#8221; should know that when facing someone that has no extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity, a sucker punch offers a distinct and often insurmountable advantage. Martin seized the advantage right from jump street. But what works on children in the Playground or old school bus drivers, proved to have a fatal flaw that dark evening in Sanford, Florida.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Couldn't we say Martin had several chances to avoid an encounter.
The facts are still the same. He attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had his head slammed on the concrete. He protected himself.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't believe he was in any danger.


MIND READER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!eep:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It's been helpful to hear the reenactment by Zimmerman. He verified some of the things I figured based on the layout of the neighborhood and the unusually long amount of time that elapsed from the time Martin was on the video to the time of the 911 call.

Martin looked suspicious in the video and Zimmerman mentioned Martin was dragging his azz wandering around *in the rain* without seemingly being in a hurry. You can watch people when it's raining at any outdoor shopping mall and most people with the exception of a very few are not wasting time getting into a dry place. Those that aren't running still have a determined pace. No body is doing a Gene Kelly.

The next question to ask is why did Trayvon walk behind the houses if he wasn't in a hurry? Why didn't he take the main sidewalk around the front of he houses? Anyone else notice that the choir boy had black clothing on that night? Remember he had about ten cents left after he shuffled around the 7-Eleven and finally bought something.

Could the choir boy have planned on checking out the stuff sitting on the neighbor's patios? Was he checking to see which places were lit up at 7:00 that night and which were not?

I think there's another possibility for Martin's rage that night. Zimmerman interfered with Martin's scoping out the neighborhood. Am I convinced? No. I'm sill trying to figure out why Martin took so long and dawdled in the rain returning from the 7 Eleven. I think that's one of the important questions that needs to be answered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman didn't believe he was in any danger.
> ...


Not exactly. The investigative report shows that the police agree with me.

_"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."_

Zimmerman will be fighting more of an uphill battle than many around here think.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't believe he was in any danger.


And how would you know that? Zimmerman said, at the time, that he did, and has said the same thing consistently since.

Can you offer us _proof _that he didn't?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> And how would you know that? Zimmerman said, at the time, that he did, and has said the same thing consistently since.
> 
> Can you offer us _proof _that he didn't?


From the report.

_"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, was afraid of Martin," Det. Chris Serino wrote. "Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject._


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> My bias against Zimmerman in this case comes from observing him. His poor judgement has been obvious, but I can see a frustrated cop in him too.
> 
> But I have formed a basic premise about this incident. It is my believe, perhaps unfounded, that Zimmerman wanted to use his gun. Not necessarily against anyone of a particular race or nationality, but against a wrongdoer (i.e., a crook -- one of "them").
> 
> ...


You are entertaining, sir. And your theory may even be right, but your last sentence is the important part.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> From the report.
> 
> _"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, was afraid of Martin," Det. Chris Serino wrote. "Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject._


One, that's the investigator's opinion, not fact. Two, he probably was afraid/concerned when Martin was looking at him and/or coming toward him, but when Martin started walking/running away, the roles switched and the level of fear would naturally go down. If Martin was moving away from him, it would make sense that Zimmerman would no longer be quite as concerned that Martin might hurt him. Then when Zimmerman thought Martin was gone and was surprised by him from behind, the level of fear probably skyrocketed, assuming that is the way it happened. My point is he probably wasn't in the same state of mind throughout the entire incident. Things change rapidly in such a situation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The US constitution provides for reasonable bail for non-capital offenses, but a judge can deny bail altogether of he has cause.


So if the judge doesn't like you the USC is out the window? 

Also, I'm talking about states not the feds.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> More evidence released today. An investigative report pretty much says what I've been suggesting all along.
> 
> _The police detective concluded that Zimmerman's actions were "inconsistent" with someone who was afraid of Martin, and that Zimmerman had several chances to end the encounter without violence._
> Police say Zimmerman had chances to defuse situation before shooting Martin - Open Channel
> ...


Based on the fact that Zimmerman attempted to keep Martin in view? What bunk. I've been in situations where I was afraid "of another subject" but made "an effort to maintain surveillance". Its not like you have to be right behind a person to see them.

This smells of the Blue Haze. It sounds like the LEO think that a civilian should just run away when they see a scary person and wait for the big brave LEO to save the day. One thing Zimmerman's lawyers need to find out is the views of that LEO is on the law which allows all those civilians to carry firearms. 




Nevada said:


> _"Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter. On at least two occasions, George Martin Zimmerman failed to  identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin. Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Benjamin Martin, and that of George Michael Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Michael Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity._


Hum. . .and just how does this explain the fact that Martin did not have injuries consistent with being on the receiving end of "hand combat" and Zimmerman did? 

You will note that this is an opinion not evidence. The LEO _thinks_ that Zimmerman should have been able to 'handle' Martin in "hand combat" which means he _thinks_ Zimmerman never was in fear of death or grievous bodily harm. Which brings us back to the pesky *fact* that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with being attacked but Martin did not. I don't know about you but any time I've seen or been involved in a fight where there was no "extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity" both combatants were injured. Are your experiences different?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> From the report.
> 
> _"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, was afraid of Martin," Det. Chris Serino wrote. "Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject._


Again I say hockey pucks! Say you just saw a large man just beat someone to the point you wonder if the victim is dead and start walking away. This dude is HUGE, I mean he looks like he could rip both ears off of Mike Tyson and not work up a sweat. Needless to say you are afraid of this guy. Now would it be "inconsistent" with you being afraid of him if you called 911, described him and tried to keep him in view until the cops arrived because you don't want someone like that roaming the streets?

Just because you are afraid of someone doesn't mean you will pee your pants as you run away.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Why didnt zimmerman tell trevon that he was a neighborhood watch? Why didnt he just ask Trevon where he was headed? Trevon asked him if he had a problem...I believe with his knowing he was carrying....he felt strong and important and was looking for trouble. WHY, please tell me did zimmerman conclude by looking at trevon, that he was a felon? That he was trouble? The carrying of a weapon is for YOUR protection...not for the purpose of making you a BIG MAN! Now there is some report that zimmerman was a bully in the workplace. If Zimmerman was so ----ed afraid of trevon why then didnt he let the police handle it? Come on people, stop defending the man with the gun and look at his motives....RAVE ON...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> Why didnt zimmerman tell trevon that he was a neighborhood watch? Why didnt he just ask Trevon where he was headed? Trevon asked him if he had a problem...I believe with his knowing he was carrying....he felt strong and important and was looking for trouble. WHY, please tell me did zimmerman conclude by looking at trevon, that he was a felon? That he was trouble? The carrying of a weapon is for YOUR protection...not for the purpose of making you a BIG MAN! Now there is some report that zimmerman was a bully in the workplace. If Zimmerman was so ----ed afraid of trevon why then didnt he let the police handle it? Come on people, stop defending the man with the gun and look at his motives....RAVE ON...


âYou got a problem?â isnât really a question, it is the opening line to a confrontation. You and I donât know why Zimmerman didnât tell Martin that he was a Neighborhood watch. But, you and I donât know if that would have prevented Martin from sucker punching Zimmerman, either. Do we?

Why do you refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first? Lots of people get tried in adult courts and go to adult prisons that are 17 years old. Are you still stuck on Martinâs grade school photo?

Martin was strolling around in the rainy darkness behind those homes, but you think Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble?

Zimmerman did want to let the police handle it, he called 911. They werenât there yet. â Please stop pounding on my face so I can give the police your name, so when they find my lifeless body on the sidewalk they will know who to go looking for. I want the police to handle this.â

If Zimmerman would have pulled his gun on Martin when he first saw him, the cops would have arrested Zimmerman for threatening deadly force. The gun didnât enter into it until after Martin attacked Zimmerman. If this were a BIG MAN deal, Zimmerman would have had his hand on the pistol when Martin sucker punched him in the nose.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not exactly. The investigative report shows that the police agree with me.
> 
> _"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."_
> 
> Zimmerman will be fighting more of an uphill battle than many around here think.


Nevada, he didn't have any reason to think he was in danger until it was too late. He didn't know he was going to be attacked. He was keeping an eye on Martin when Martin went on the attack. Up until the time Martin attacked him Zimmermen didn't have any reason to think he was in danger.
When Martin attacked him, beat his head on the sidewalk, tried to smother him, and tried to get Zimmerman's gun, and told him he was going to kill him, Zimmerman knew he was in danger and acted like he should.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Read the whole police transcript, top to bottom. Its so clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor here, until Martin [ is that better} decided to fight it...You people make martin sound like a giant, not so...he was a 17 year old well built kid. he has no priors, but if he did, Zimmerman did not know that. the record shows that Zimmerman had two chances to diffuse this. He choose not to.... Instead he choose to call the kid bad names and profile him. Four previous times he called the police on young BLACK kids...and 48 times he called for other reasons...hes a cop wanna be with a huge ego that got his ego clocked....Too bad a young man is now dead because of it....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> Why didnt zimmerman tell trevon that he was a neighborhood watch? Why didnt he just ask Trevon where he was headed? Trevon asked him if he had a problem...I believe with his knowing he was carrying....he felt strong and important and was looking for trouble. WHY, please tell me did zimmerman conclude by looking at trevon, that he was a felon? That he was trouble? The carrying of a weapon is for YOUR protection...not for the purpose of making you a BIG MAN! Now there is some report that zimmerman was a bully in the workplace. If Zimmerman was so ----ed afraid of trevon why then didnt he let the police handle it? Come on people, stop defending the man with the gun and look at his motives....RAVE ON...


Are you aware the Zimmermans never had guns until the police told them to get guns? One of the big lies is that Zimmerman is a cop wannabe. The Zimmerman's bought them because of a dog problem.

It's obvious from the video of Martin in the 7-Eleven, that something strange was going on with the kid. Would you let your kid go out in the rain, at night wearing black clothes and run the risk of getting hit by a car?

Why did the kid take so long walking back from the 7 Eleven *IN THE RAIN?* The way the kid was walking while appearing almost drunk would have gotten anyone's attention. The body language of the clerk in the 7-Eleven showed even he was concerned about Martin. 

Zimmerman, contrary to the media lies, wasn't doing anything more than trying to look out for his neighbors. You can always cherry pick the facts to prove what you want. You can't prove it when you consider *ALL* of the facts.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> Read the whole police transcript, top to bottom. Its so clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor here, until Martin [ is that better} decided to fight it...You people make martin sound like a giant, not so...he was a 17 year old well built kid. he has no priors, but if he did, Zimmerman did not know that. the record shows that Zimmerman had two chances to diffuse this. He choose not to.... Instead he choose to call the kid bad names and profile him. Four previous times he called the police on young BLACK kids...and 48 times he called for other reasons...hes a cop wanna be with a huge ego that got his ego clocked....Too bad a young man is now dead because of it....


You should read more and type less. Your lack of info and your prejudice is showing.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Excuse me???? My lack? You change the transcripts AND the facts to support you views.. I have every right to post my views just as you do....I am so sick of you thinking your the only opinion that counts here...You make suppositions about every fact here....Go tell someone your bull that gives a hoot! I for one will talk to people that have some openness to other ideas.....Your wed sites to not interest me...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> Read the whole police transcript, top to bottom. Its so clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor here, until Martin [ is that better} decided to fight it...You people make martin sound like a giant, not so...he was a 17 year old well built kid. he has no priors, but if he did, Zimmerman did not know that. the record shows that Zimmerman had two chances to diffuse this. He choose not to.... Instead he choose to call the kid bad names and profile him. Four previous times he called the police on young BLACK kids...and 48 times he called for other reasons...hes a cop wanna be with a huge ego that got his ego clocked....Too bad a young man is now dead because of it....


In your world the verbal aggressor deserves to get his nose broken? Let's say I walk out of WalMart at night and see you looking into the back of my truck. I call 911. I see you looking around to see if anyone is around, so I walk up to see exactly what you are doing and see if everything in the back of my truck is still there. I loudly ask, " What the F**K are you doing?" Do you honestly believe that gives you the justification to punch me and sit on me, banging my head into the pavement? Do people in your world just let someone take stuff without checking on their property? Am I wrong for walking in a public (WalMart) parking lot? Do some people have the right to walk anywhere they want, but others are aggressive by walking in those same places?

The claim you make about Zimmerman's four 911 calls on young black men is more of a sad reflection of crime statistics for young Black men than any proof of racism. Are police racist because they arrest 3 young Black men for violent crimes for every young White man arrested for violent crimes? Are Judges and Juries racist because that convict three times as many young Black men than young White men? I think that ignoring the crime statistics shows your racial bias bordering on racism. 

You want to dismiss Martin's criminal history while fabricating on on Zimmerman. Hog wash. Even if Zimmerman had a rap sheet as long as Martin's arm, it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the facts. 

I'm about 5 foot 9, near Zimmerman's height. To me a guy that is 6 foot 3 or 6 foot 4, is a big guy. With a hood up, looks even taller. With a baggy hoodie, Martin would look larger/heavier. Dark, rainy, unsure of the abilities of this larger man, alone, not sure when or if the police will arrive, yup, I'd be afraid, too.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> Excuse me???? My lack? You change the transcripts AND the facts to support you views.. I have every right to post my views just as you do....I am so sick of you thinking your the only opinion that counts here...You make suppositions about every fact here....Go tell someone your bull that gives a hoot! I for one will talk to people that have some openness to other ideas.....Your wed sites to not interest me...


I don't think anyone is challenging your right to post your views. However when you don't consider all of the facts and semi-parrot the bogus media campaign that a lawyer started, then you can expect people to speak up.

If you have no interest in educating yourself about the histories of both Martin and Zimmerman, and considering all of the facts, how do you expect people to react that have spent the time necessary to try to understand what happened that night, in the rain, in the backyard of those houses where burglaries had occured along with one home invasion where a young mother hid cowering with her baby in a locked bedroom?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

suzfromWi said:


> Excuse me???? My lack? You change the transcripts AND the facts to support you views.. I have every right to post my views just as you do....I am so sick of you thinking your the only opinion that counts here...You make suppositions about every fact here....Go tell someone your bull that gives a hoot! I for one will talk to people that have some openness to other ideas.....Your wed sites to not interest me...


The facts don't interest you. We can see that.

Let's go over some facts.

Martin was walking in the rain, checking out peoples porches/property. That makes him highly suspicious in any neiborhood.

While zimmerman was on the phone with police and in his truck, Martin approached his truck, walked around it and walked off again. I think his words were "he's checking me out". Something to that effect.

Who approached who? Martin walked to zimmerman. Zimmerman at this point did not confront Martin and very well could have. That kinda blows Nevada's ridiculous theory out of the water. If zimmerman was indeed "out to shoot" somebody, he missed an opportunity. It also disputes the girl's story supposedly on the phone with martin as reported by crump(we don't know if it's really what she says). Martin did not run away or "walk fast.". He went to zimmerman in his truck.

Zimmerman then followed martin at a distance to see where he was headed so he could report martins location to police. He said okay when dispatch told him he didn't need to do that.

He also said more than once that martin was gone. He believed that martin was no longer in the area.

Martin again approaches zimmerman. And don't forget this(it's very important), martin approached zimmerman a *second time.* We'll go over it again, so it's clear in everyones mind, Martin appoached zimmermans truck while zimmerman was in it talking on the phone to police and walked around it. It is very plausable and even likely he would approach zimmerman while he was outside the truck.

Okay, one more time. Martin closed the distance between himself and zimmerman while zimmerman was sitting in his parked truck.

Martin *again* closed the distance between himself and zimmerman when zimmerman believed martin was gone.

All evidence supports zimmermans statements. All you have to do is read it and not ignore the parts that don't fit your version.

Nevada is living in a world manufactured by his own biased. No one is going to believe zimmerman had any intent on shooting anyone. He passed up a couple opportunities to do just that. He called police rather than confront martin at the very start. He remained restrained when martin approached his truck. He didn't shoot on sight when martin approached on the walkway. He attempted to minimize the damage being done to him by squirming his head off the concrete rather than killing martin then. He only shot after his firearm was revealed and martin said he was going to die.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't know if it is a reading problem or a lack of understanding what they read.
Some people will look at a statement and get a completely wrong idea of what it says. They usually fall back on "they really meant", "What they really thought", "It doesn't make any sense", "It most likely happened this way".

Sometimes it is so simple. Just read the police transcripts, listen to what the eye witnesses said, look at the videos, look at the injuries, and look at the evidence.
You don't have to put in your experiences, your prejudices, what you would have done, what you think was in their minds.
Just read and try to understand. I know that is something some people can't do.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> In your world the verbal aggressor deserves to get his nose broken? Let's say I walk out of WalMart at night and see you looking into the back of my truck. I call 911. I see you looking around to see if anyone is around, so I walk up to see exactly what you are doing and see if everything in the back of my truck is still there. I loudly ask, " What the F**K are you doing?" Do you honestly believe that gives you the justification to punch me and sit on me, banging my head into the pavement? Do people in your world just let someone take stuff without checking on their property? Am I wrong for walking in a public (WalMart) parking lot? Do some people have the right to walk anywhere they want, but others are aggressive by walking in those same places?
> 
> The claim you make about Zimmerman's four 911 calls on young black men is more of a sad reflection of crime statistics for young Black men than any proof of racism. Are police racist because they arrest 3 young Black men for violent crimes for every young White man arrested for violent crimes? Are Judges and Juries racist because that convict three times as many young Black men than young White men? I think that ignoring the crime statistics shows your racial bias bordering on racism.
> 
> ...


The problem I see with this is that Zimmerman walked back to where Martin was while on the way back to his truck. In the video it is clear that he was past the sidewalk that went between the apartments, so he had to back track to get back to Martin. Otherwise the fight would have taken place on the sidewalk that went to the side of the apartments instead of between them. Why did Zimmerman go back to where Martin was when he already knew the police were on their way? Why did he veer from his trip back to the truck and backtrack to where Martin was?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> I don't think anyone is challenging your right to post your views. However when you don't consider all of the facts and semi-parrot the bogus media campaign that a lawyer started, then you can expect people to speak up.
> 
> If you have no interest in educating yourself about the histories of both Martin and Zimmerman, and considering all of the facts, how do you expect people to react that have spent the time necessary to try to understand what happened that night, in the rain, in the backyard of those houses where burglaries had occured along with one home invasion where a young mother hid cowering with her baby in a locked bedroom?


The problem with this is that even those who claim to have educated themselves in this case are still using suppositions to support their claims, which is understandable since none of us were there and the only two that really knows what happened were Zimmerman and Martin and Martin is now dead. Zimmerman is not the choir boy many on here make him out to be either. People have talked about Martin acting strange in the 7-11 and talked about him being strung out on drugs, yet the facts from the autopsy showed he had some evidence of pot in his system, but doesn't list any other drugs. I have been around people smoking pot, they usually aren't dangerous. The video of him in the store doesn't give me the impression he was high, just looking around. People make a big deal about how he was walking, not knowing how he usually walks I don't know how anyone could make a judgement on that according to the video. They make a big deal about him walking in the rain, having lived in Florida it's not unusual for folks to walk in the rain, I did it all the time, even playing in the puddles with my DS. They made a big deal about the hoodie, but I know lots of people who wear hoodies, I even wear them. Just seems to me that a lot of folks are basing their decisions on things other than what the evidence actually shows, but on their own fantasies about what may or may not have happened. Neither of the parties involved were saints. Yet according to some here Zimmerman was and Martin was nothing but a thug. I believe a lot of this does have to do with racism and have seen a few members pretty much say as much.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> The facts don't interest you. We can see that.
> 
> Let's go over some facts.
> 
> ...


By Zimmerman's own words he was heading to his truck and then heard Martin say something and for whatever reason he stopped heading to his truck and approached Martin where an altercation took place.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> In your world the verbal aggressor deserves to get his nose broken?


Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin so the police could interrogate him. Zimmerman made it clear to Martin that he wasn't going anyplace, but Martin objected. A fistfight followed. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he shot Martin in anger.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't know that Zimmerman walked into the backyard (commons) area twice. It seemed to me that Zimmerman tried to keep Martin in sight by getting out of the truck and walking out and then somewhat into the commons area. At that point I think Martin hid on one of the patios so that the privacy screen between two of the townhouses prevented Zimmerman from seeing him. It was suggested that Zimmerman did not need to follow Martin and the dispatcher wanted an address. There were no address markers on the backs of the houses. 

When Zimmerman turned to go back to the truck and started walking back, Martin approached him from Zimmerman's left side which made sense if he was hiding. It would have been more difficult for Martin to hide from view on the other side on one of the patios based on how close to the houses they were.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> By Zimmerman's own words he was heading to his truck and then heard Martin say something and for whatever reason he stopped heading to his truck and approached Martin where an altercation took place.


Sonshine, I can understand where you are coming from and the reason you see things they way you do. I think that may be clouding your understanding and opinion.

Please just look at the evidence and not the color of each individual.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin so the police could interrogate him. Zimmerman made it clear to Martin that he wasn't going anyplace, but Martin objected. A fistfight followed. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he shot Martin in anger.


Is this another of your storys you worked out in your head?
What makes you think Zimmerman made it clear to Martin that he was going to detain him?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> What makes you think Zimmerman made it clear to Martin that he was going to detain him?


The entire purpose in following him was because they "always get away." Zimmerman was making sure that this one didn't get away. Knowing that was the case, why is it so hard to believe that he would say that out loud.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schoolsâ bright orange and green hues.

Read more here: Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> By Zimmerman's own words he was heading to his truck and then heard Martin say something and for whatever reason he stopped heading to his truck and approached Martin where an altercation took place.


No, your adding to what he said. He was going to his truck. Martin did say something. But they were both on the sidewalk going to the truck untill martin who had approached zimmerman punched him.



> You got part of it right. He was walking in the rain. There is no proof he was checking out people's properties.


Zimmerman said he was looking at peoples properties. It's the reason he called police. Do you have another witness that says otherwise?



> According to the video that was posted where Zimmerman was showing what happened it showed that he was on route to his truck, yet Martin asked what his problem was and he backtracked, going away from his truck, towards Martin, where the confrontation took place.


No, that's not what he said. Once martin confronted him, he did not move again untill he was hit. He reached for his phone.



> If Martin walked to Zimmerman they would have still been on the sidewalk leading to his truck, instead they were on the sidewalk going between the buildings.


He said he was hit while on the sidewalk to his truck and while stunned and trying to ward of martin he he ended up on the sidewalk between the buildings. Very believable by the way. If you've ever been sucker punched, you do not stand there for the next one. You do your best to stay on your feet and get a little distance to recover. You do not care what direction you go to get that distance. Unfortunatley for zimmerman, he failed to stay on his feet and keep distance.



> Zimmerman approached Martin, leaving the sidewalk leading to his truck.


No, that is your version. Zimmerman does not say that. No other witness says that. No marks on martin other than his knuckles says that. That's your own version. And you completley ignore the fact tha Martin did go to Zimmermans truck while zimmerman was in it.

It's very convenient of you to not address the fact that martin approached zimmermans truck with him in it to check him out.

Why address everything else but leave this part out? Cause it doesn't fit with you insistance that zimmerman did all the following/approaching?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin so the police could interrogate him. Zimmerman made it clear to Martin that he wasn't going anyplace, but Martin objected. A fistfight followed. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he shot Martin in anger.


In your world, wanting to detain someone while the Police are on the way, without touching Martin, is criminal. But âobjectedâ means knocking the guy to the ground with a fist to the nose and riding him like a Merry-Go-Round pony while peppering him with fists to the face? Since when does sucker punching someone that hasnât touched or threatened harm called a fistfight? In the real world, that is known as simple assault. In this same world, people that are being assault are permitted to protect themselves, even when that means deadly force.

If Zimmerman had grabbed Martin and told him that he wasnât going anywhere, then Martin could have claimed he was assaulted and this discussion would have been different.

All we have is eye witness accounts and what Zimmerman says happened. Sorry, Nevada, your star witness died.

So, while you are left with assuming Zimmerman is lying and forced to resort to âWhat I think really happened.â OK, letâs do that for a moment. If Iâm wanting to detain someone for the police and Iâve got a pistol, Iâm not going to risk a fight by grabbing on to him. If Iâve got 911 on my cell phone speed dial, I donât need to detain him right there, I can follow at a safe distance until the police arrive. The Dispatch person told Zimmerman he didnât NEED to follow him.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The entire purpose in following him was because they "always get away." Zimmerman was making sure that this one didn't get away. Knowing that was the case, why is it so hard to believe that he would say that out loud.


Another story you made up in your mind. Are you sure that was not a plot of another of those old movies you like?
Zimmerman was watching Martin to make sure he knew where he was when the police got there.

I don't quite understand how you find it hard to believe the evidence and would rather believe something you make up in your own mind. You seem to think Zimmerman is capable and guilty of so many things but Martin is just a little kid skipping along in the rain.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The entire purpose in following him was because they "always get away." Zimmerman was making sure that this one didn't get away. Knowing that was the case, why is it so hard to believe that he would say that out loud.


Zimmerman likely was trying prevent martin from getting away. By following him so he could tell police where he was at.

Trying to detain him is your fabrication since all evidence and testimony does not support the theory.

Were are the bruises on martin from being detained?

Your theory doesn not have any supporting evidence.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schoolsâ bright orange and green hues.
> 
> Read more here: Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


Come on. Martin has as much chance of going to college as I do flying. It should give you some hint about how serious he was about college when he picked them because of the colors. He couldn't even stay in high school. Had been kicked out several times.
Martin's main interest was drugs. Both using them and selling them. He didn't have a future.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> The problem I see with this is that Zimmerman walked back to where Martin was while on the way back to his truck. In the video it is clear that he was past the sidewalk that went between the apartments, so he had to back track to get back to Martin. Otherwise the fight would have taken place on the sidewalk that went to the side of the apartments instead of between them. Why did Zimmerman go back to where Martin was when he already knew the police were on their way? Why did he veer from his trip back to the truck and backtrack to where Martin was?


In the video where he was re-enacting it, he was maybe five feet past that perpendicular sidewalk when he said Martin surprised him from behind. In a scuffle, you can easily end up twenty feet in any direction from where you started, especially if you're just backing up trying to escape the fight.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> In your world, wanting to detain someone while the Police are on the way, without touching Martin, is criminal.


Wanting to detain someone is certainly not a criminal act. But if Zimmerman said something like "you aren't going anywhere" then Martin's racial fears could have been triggered. In that case Martin would have wanted to get away. It wouldn't have taken much for Martin to think he was being forcibly detained (perhaps even abducted), just grabbing his arm would be enough. In that situation Martin had every justification to resist with whatever force was necessary.

While I can't say exactly how it happened, I think Zimmerman's story of Martin attacking him unprovoked is unlikely. I can't help but think that there must have been some kind of reason to Martin's actions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I don't quite understand how you find it hard to believe the evidence and would rather believe something you make up in your own mind.


We have no evidence about how the fist fight started except for Zimmerman's word. It could have happened a lot of ways, but Zimmerman claimed that he was attacked unprovoked. I don't buy it, and I don't think the jury will buy it either.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schools&#8217; bright orange and green hues.
> 
> Read more here: Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


Well, ain&#8217;t that just the sweetest thing?
Many of the convicted felons I worked with wanted to continue their educations and start a record company. 
I&#8217;d guess that if you&#8217;d ask the bus driver that he wacked upside the head, he&#8217;d tell a different story. If you&#8217;d talk to the owner of the jewelry that Martin had in his backpack, they&#8217;d think Martin a no good thief. Any young person that aspires to be the No Limit Ni&&er, won&#8217;t be fitted with a choir uniform in my church. Just where was Martin attending school? Oh, that&#8217;s right, they found a burglary/assault weapon in his backpack and thought it too serious to let him attend school. Where was he living? Oh, Mom had had enough and turned him over to Dad, to straighten him out. Yup, a regular saint that boy. It is normal to be going out for Skittles in the rain, while Dad is out for the evening?
The waste of a human life with so much opportunity ahead is a terrible tragedy. The difference is that you see Zimmerman as the one who wasted a life, I see it to be Martin. It is a horrendous social problem that 40 years of governmental bootstrap pulling hasn&#8217;t changed a thing. Whites can ignore it and the Blacks can only accept the realities of it. Often ready for any sort of scapegoat, the Black Community thought they had a &#8220; It isn&#8217;t just Blacks killin&#8217; Blacks, we&#8217;ve got us a White guy that&#8217;s a black child killer.&#8221; Issue that they could rally more White guilt and shake them down for mo&#8217; free money.

Martin&#8217;s favorite TV show, Martin: A common theme of the series is Martin's hot-headed and rash nature; episodes often center on Martin's inconsiderate, yet smart-mouthed attitude towards his friends, neighbors, and whoever else might find themselves in his presence. 
I find that interesting.

Martin liked planes. And the school felt that a half day in school classes and a half day learning how to change the oil in a plane at a nearby Trade School was a good fit for a guy on a blue collar career path.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> While I can't say exactly how it happened, I think Zimmerman's story of Martin attacking him unprovoked is unlikely. I can't help but think that there must have been some kind of reason to Martin's actions.


This explaination is as good as any I suppose, since you want to play "what if".



> The knockout game involves "unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders," according to police who have had to deal with it. A retired officer explained, "Normally it was a group of black males, one of which would strike him as hard as he could in the face, attempting to knock him out with one punch," says retired Sgt. Don Pizzo. The victims are typically not robbed, but simply punched with no provocation. Such attacks have been reported in Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Articles: The Knockout Game: Racial Violence and the Conspicuous Silence of the Media


Martin was out looking for trouble. And found it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Wanting to detain someone is certainly not a criminal act. But if Zimmerman said something like "you aren't going anywhere" then Martin's racial fears could have been triggered. In that case Martin would have wanted to get away. It wouldn't have taken much for Martin to think he was being forcibly detained (perhaps even abducted), just grabbing his arm would be enough. In that situation Martin had every justification to resist with whatever force was necessary.
> 
> While I can't say exactly how it happened, I think Zimmerman's story of Martin attacking him unprovoked is unlikely. I can't help but think that there must have been some kind of reason to Martin's actions.


If that was even close to the truth don't you think Martin would have turned and ran. He could have easily outran Zimmerman. Why would he have approached Zimmerman in the first place?

It is very hard to think like a druggie unless you are one. They are not known for their great decision making skills. If they were they would not be on drugs to begin with.
I think that shown Martin had a habit of making the wrong decisions.
His decision to steal was a wrong decision. 
His decision to use drugs was a wrong decision.
His decision to sell drugs was a wrong decision.
His decision to take drugs to school was a wrong decision.
His decisaion to have burgulary tools was a wrong decision.
His decision to have jewelery that wasn't his in his possession was a wrong decision.
His decision to attack other people was not a good decision.
His decision to continue to do these things even after being kicked out of school was not a good decision.

He had a habit of making the wrong decision. He made one too many wrong decisions.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> We have no evidence about how the fist fight started except for Zimmerman's word. It could have happened a lot of ways, but Zimmerman claimed that he was attacked unprovoked. I don't buy it, and I don't think the jury will buy it either.


Bull.

We have a broken nose and no marks on martin.

We have statements that martin approached zimmerman while in the truck.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> If that was even close to the truth don't you think Martin would have turned and ran. He could have easily outran Zimmerman.


Zimmerman didn't run either, since running wasn't part of his story. If he was afraid for his life wouldn't he have tried to run?



pancho said:


> Why would he have approached Zimmerman in the first place?


I don't know that Martin approached Zimmerman. In the girlfriend's statement, the first thing said was Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there. That sounds to be like Zimmerman could have approached Martin.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> Bull.
> 
> We have a broken nose and no marks on martin.


That has no relevance to the question of who might have started the fight, only who might have been winning or losing the fight after it started.



time said:


> We have statements that martin approached zimmerman while in the truck.


In the truck? No, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached him while he was walking towards his truck.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't run either, since running wasn't part of his story. If he was afraid for his life wouldn't he have tried to run?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that Martin approached Zimmerman. In the girlfriend's statement, the first thing said was Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there. That sounds to be like Zimmerman could have approached Martin.


Again Nevada, you are making up things that you want and leaving out the actual things that did happen.
One thing you should understand, she was not his girlfriend.
You only have her word second hand about what was said.

Why do you seem so eager to believe her and your imagination when the facts and the phone calls are so easy to hear?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

"Why do you refer to Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin by his first? Lots of people get tried in adult courts and go to adult prisons that are 17 years old. Are you still stuck on Martinâs grade school photo?"

Hay, NV thinks this is deliberately racist! To show the superiority of whites.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't run either, since running wasn't part of his story. If he was afraid for his life wouldn't he have tried to run?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that Martin approached Zimmerman. In the girlfriend's statement, the first thing said was Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there. That sounds to be like Zimmerman could have approached Martin.


You need to get your facts right.



> GIRLFRIEND: And then he told me this guy was getting close. Like, he told me the guy was getting real close to him. Next thing I hear: "Why are you following me for?"
> 
> POLICE OFFICER: OK. So let me make sure I understand this. So, Trayvon tells you that the guy is getting closer to him.
> 
> ...


Both the girl and zimmerman said martin spoke first. So applying your own logic, that sounds to be like martin could have approached zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Again Nevada, you are making up things that you want and leaving out the actual things that did happen.
> One thing you should understand, she was not his girlfriend.
> You only have her word second hand about what was said.


I believe that her testimony will be decisive in this case. Her recollection of the call directly contradicts Zimmerman's statement.



Zimmerman claims that Martin spoke first, asking if he had a problem.
The girlfriend claims that Zimmerman spoke first, asking what Martin was doing there.

That's a serious contradiction that Zimmerman will need to overcome.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That has no relevance to the question of who might have started the fight, only who might have been winning or losing the fight after it started.
> 
> 
> 
> In the truck? No, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached him while he was walking towards his truck.


It does have relevance. You claim there is no evidence. There is evidence and it does not support your claim. It does support zimmermans account.

Listen to the police call. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that martin is walking to his truck, circling and checking him out. Martin did approach zimmerman in his truck. He did not confront him at that time, but he did approach.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I believe that her testimony will be decisive in this case. Her recollection of the call directly contradicts Zimmerman's statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that's a contradiction you will need to overcome. 

[*]Zimmerman claims that Martin spoke first, asking if he had a problem.
[*]The girlfriend claims that Martin spoke first, asking what Zimmerman was following him for.

The only true contradiction was crumps first media report saying the girl said zimmerman spoke first then she told police martin spoke first. She contradicted herself.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

time said:


> The only true contradiction was crumps first media report saying the girl said zimmerman spoke first then she told police martin spoke first. She contradicted herself.


I still believe her testimony will decide this case. I think you are making a mistake in taking it so lightly. I'll tell you this right now, Zimmerman's lawyer is taking it very seriously.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I believe that her testimony will be decisive in this case. Her recollection of the call directly contradicts Zimmerman's statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nevada, you and many others keep ignoring that *MARTIN DID NOT HAVE A GIRL FRIEND.* Once again, you and the media bought the bogus choir boy image that Crump's publicist invented.

*The reason given by Crump that she didn't go to the funeral WAS A LIE.* It wasn't because she was heart-broken. She already had a boyfriend. Martin was nothing to her. His death meant nothing when you look at her tweets to her friends the next day.

That is one of the reasons the Crump story line falls apart when examined and why I would like to see Crump held responsible for the repercussions of his lies. The vagueness and change in her recollection, if anything, indicate she hasn't told the truth. Instead she's massaged it into a half truth that sort of supports Crump's story.

There's a couple of things either the detectives were derelict in checking or Crump made a bunch of stuff up to suit his purposes. The police found Martin's phone. Why didn't they immediately contact anyone he had talked to immediately before the incident?

The most obvious WTH is supposedly after hearing the confrontation start, and then the phone supposedly went dead why didn't Martin's love struck supposed girl friend call someone? This was a boy she was supposedly talking to most of the day. Yet when something happened, she went on talking to her other friends with a unbelievable casualness later when mentioning his death. There was no sadness, no condolences from her friends. Martin was simply, "that kid."

Martin's death wasn't even a blip in her life or in her activities. If you believe her story, there's a bunch of Nigerians that desperately need your help. You're right about her "testimony" being decisive in this case. It's just 180 degrees out from what you expect.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words, I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.

Now I have read that Zimmerman had two opportunities BEFORE the physical interaction to announce to Martin that he was "neighborhood patrol" or at least say "hey I live here, what are you doing walking around my peaceful neighborhood?" No instead Zimmerman decided to stalk person walking on public and private property, that Martin had every right to be passing on.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I believe that her testimony will be decisive in this case. Her recollection of the call directly contradicts Zimmerman's statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think it will matter who spoke first. What matters is who was the first to attack. There is no law against asking a person a question. There is a law against assault.

If Martin's "girlfriend" gets on the stand that will open her up to questions from Zimmerman's lawyer. I think that is the last thing the prosecutor wants.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words, I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.
> 
> Now I have read that Zimmerman had two opportunities BEFORE the physical interaction to announce to Martin that he was "neighborhood patrol" or at least say "hey I live here, what are you doing walking around my peaceful neighborhood?" No instead Zimmerman decided to stalk person walking on public and private property, that Martin had every right to be passing on.


Again, you have not kept up with the story. There are medical reports. There are police records stating a broken nose and cuts to the back of the head. Please try to keep up.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FreeRanger said:


> Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words,* I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.*
> 
> Now I have read that Zimmerman had two opportunities BEFORE the physical interaction to announce to Martin that he was "neighborhood patrol" or at least say "hey I live here, what are you doing walking around my peaceful neighborhood?" No instead Zimmerman decided to stalk person walking on public and private property, that Martin had every right to be passing on.


The nose isn't bone. It's cartilage. Zimmerman was examined at the scene by fire department paramedics. EMS personnel are taught to rapidly evaluate paients. One of the first things is to examine the eyes and ears for signs of a head injury and the general responsiveness of the patient. Here, in a very rural area, EMS has called for a helicopter for slighter chances of a head injury. A patient always has the right to refuse treament. As long as they sign on he dotted line, EMS is off the hook liability wise. Zimmerman was concerned enough to go to his own doctor.

"*A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation." *

George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I still believe her testimony will decide this case. I think you are making a mistake in taking it so lightly. I'll tell you this right now, Zimmerman's lawyer is taking it very seriously.


I don't doubt you believe what you want.

[YOUTUBE]PfVTM8sqz4k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

The police report said that Zimmerman refused medical treatment, and said he was okay. They checked on him a few times.he was okay... Wouldn't a man with a broken nose and head injuries from being slammed against the sidewalk want medical treatment? The police report said that Trevon saw Zimmerman reach for his pocket...Zimmer man said he was reaching for his cell phone...Could not Trevon have thought he was reaching for a weapon? At this time the boy didn't know Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person. perhaps he thought it was a gun the man was reaching for...he wasn't far wrong if that was his thought. Id like to know where the info about Trevons past is coming from....I havent found it....


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

FreeRanger said:


> Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words, I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.
> 
> Now I have read that Zimmerman had two opportunities BEFORE the physical interaction to announce to Martin that he was "neighborhood patrol" or at least say "hey I live here, what are you doing walking around my peaceful neighborhood?" No instead Zimmerman decided to stalk person walking on public and private property, that Martin had every right to be passing on.


I don't know where you read any of that.

I suggest a new source though. Yours isn't very accurate.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Sonshine, I can understand where you are coming from and the reason you see things they way you do. I think that may be clouding your understanding and opinion.
> 
> Please just look at the evidence and not the color of each individual.


I don't believe I'm looking at the color of the skin of either party involved, but it sure seems a lot of this stems from others looking at the color. I'm not naive enough to believe that Martin was a saint, but I also don't believe Zimmerman was. The evidence is being stretched by many on here with their own thoughts of what might have happened, or how it may have happened. That's where the problem arises. NO ONE is sticking to just the evidence, but are adding their own thoughts on what that evidence means.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words, I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.
> 
> Now I have read that Zimmerman had two opportunities BEFORE the physical interaction to announce to Martin that he was "neighborhood patrol" or at least say "hey I live here, what are you doing walking around my peaceful neighborhood?" No instead Zimmerman decided to stalk person walking on public and private property, that Martin had every right to be passing on.



If I come home after a vicious assault and my nose is crooked and crunches when I put it back in place, I donât need no stinking X-rays. You canât put a cast on a nose. If you got a tooth knocked out, do you need a dentist to tell you it got knocked out? No. Sometimes on a minor break, youâd need an X-ray to be sure. Compound fractures and broken noses, X-ray not generally needed.
Either comment, â Why are you following me?â Or âWhatâs your problem?â arenât questions in the true conversational sense. But it makes little difference what exactly was said.

If Martin was hiding and he saw Zimmerman walk to the front of the Condos, he might think Zimmerman was following him, when Zimmerman was actually getting house numbers. So, it is logical that Martin would question Zimmerman as he passed Martin on his way to his truck. If Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin, having him suddenly appear would be startling. Martin could have been at an advantage, having seen Zimmerman first. Perhaps if the 911 Dispatcher had told Zimmerman to identify himself and keep an eye on the suspicious stranger, Martin might not have lashed out. But, Zimmerman wasnât âstalkingâ Martin, he was walking back from getting house numbers ( note to self: put house numbers on the backs of all homes, especially gated communities, to save the lives of more prowlers) 

Having the right to be somewhere is different than looking suspicious. I can legally stand on your lawn until you tell me to leave. I can cut across your back yard without breaking any law. I can ask strangers on the street what their problem is. Why is it a crime for Zimmerman to be on the lawn and ask strangers questions, yet Martin has every right to do the same thing?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> No, your adding to what he said. He was going to his truck. Martin did say something. But they were both on the sidewalk going to the truck untill martin who had approached zimmerman punched him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may need to re-watch the video in the OP. It shows Zimmerman showing where he was walking on one sidewalk that led to his truck. He had passed by the sidewalk going between the apartments, where the altercation happened. He had to have either walked back to that other sidewalk or Martin would have had to have dragged him to it in order for the scenario everyone is trying to paint to work.

As for Martin approaching the truck, at the time of the altercation Zimmerman was not in the truck, which is why I saw no need to address it, preferring instead to address the discrepency I noted in the walk through Zimmerman did.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> No, your adding to what he said. He was going to his truck. Martin did say something. But they were both on the sidewalk going to the truck untill martin who had approached zimmerman punched him.
> 
> *This does not fit the scenario, since the altercation did not happen on the sidewalk leading to the truck.*
> 
> ...


My responses are bolded in the above.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I don't believe I'm looking at the color of the skin of either party involved, but it sure seems a lot of this stems from others looking at the color. I'm not naive enough to believe that Martin was a saint, but I also don't believe Zimmerman was. The evidence is being stretched by many on here with their own thoughts of what might have happened, or how it may have happened. That's where the problem arises. NO ONE is sticking to just the evidence, but are adding their own thoughts on what that evidence means.


BINGO. When you take away the histories of Martin and Zimmerman, take away what Martin was doing prior to hitting Zimmerman, take away what Zimmerman said or did up to the moment when the incident started, it is a simple case. Martin slugged Zimmerman to the ground. Martin sat on Zimmerman and beat his head into concrete. Zimmerman says he felt threatened at that moment. He was unable to run. He fatally shot Martin. Clearly, not a crime to act in self-defense.
If Martin would have survived the gunshot, I believe the known facts support an assault charge against Martin.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> In your world, wanting to detain someone while the Police are on the way, without touching Martin, is criminal. But âobjectedâ means knocking the guy to the ground with a fist to the nose and riding him like a Merry-Go-Round pony while peppering him with fists to the face? Since when does sucker punching someone that hasnât touched or threatened harm called a fistfight? In the real world, that is known as simple assault. In this same world, people that are being assault are permitted to protect themselves, even when that means deadly force.
> 
> If Zimmerman had grabbed Martin and told him that he wasnât going anywhere, then Martin could have claimed he was assaulted and this discussion would have been different.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, all of the eye witnesses didn't see the start of the altercation. Zimmerman can say anything and there's no one who can rebut it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> In the video where he was re-enacting it, he was maybe five feet past that perpendicular sidewalk when he said Martin surprised him from behind. In a scuffle, you can easily end up twenty feet in any direction from where you started, especially if you're just backing up trying to escape the fight.


Ok, I can see backing up, but in order to end up where the altercation happened it would have been more than just backing up. They had to turn the corner to end up between the buildings. Zimmerman doesn't explain how they ended up on a different sidewalk than the one he was originally walking on to get to his truck. Also, unless I'm mistaken, Zimmerman said that Martin was on the other sidewalk when he yelled out to him. What made Zimmerman go back to that other sidewalk?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> You may need to re-watch the video in the OP. It shows Zimmerman showing where he was walking on one sidewalk that led to his truck. He had passed by the sidewalk going between the apartments, where the altercation happened. He had to have either walked back to that other sidewalk or Martin would have had to have dragged him to it in order for the scenario everyone is trying to paint to work.
> 
> As for Martin approaching the truck, at the time of the altercation Zimmerman was not in the truck, which is why I saw no need to address it, preferring instead to address the discrepency I noted in the walk through Zimmerman did.


No need to watch it again.

The police asked him how he got over there. He said he wasn't sure. He said when martin hit him, he stumbled, tried to stay on his feet and get away from martin. They ended up on the grass/sidewalk between the houses when he went down.

Simple.

You seem to be under the impression the fight started there. It did not. It ended there.

Of course you would fail to address martin approaching zimmerman in his truck. It shows that martin was willing to approach once so it stands to reason that he would do it again. 

It's also hard to argue martin was afraid of zimmerman when he would walk towards him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> This explaination is as good as any I suppose, since you want to play "what if".
> 
> 
> 
> Martin was out looking for trouble. And found it.


The knock out game is usually done in front of others as a way to impress them. How's doing it in private going to impress anyone?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada, you and many others keep ignoring that *MARTIN DID NOT HAVE A GIRL FRIEND.*


Why does her precise relationship to Martin matter? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe her because you don't consider her to be his girlfriend?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> Bull.
> 
> We have a broken nose and no marks on martin.
> 
> We have statements that martin approached zimmerman while in the truck.


Statements made only by Zimmerman. No eye witnesses saying how it started.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Ok, I can see backing up, but in order to end up where the altercation happened it would have been more than just backing up. They had to turn the corner to end up between the buildings. Zimmerman doesn't explain how they ended up on a different sidewalk than the one he was originally walking on to get to his truck. Also, unless I'm mistaken, Zimmerman said that Martin was on the other sidewalk when he yelled out to him. What made Zimmerman go back to that other sidewalk?


They didn't have to turn a corner. They went across the grass.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Statements made only by Zimmerman. No eye witnesses saying how it started.


No evidence to the contrary, zimmermans statements must be taken as fact. Especially when the available evidence backs up his story.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> BINGO. When you take away the histories of Martin and Zimmerman, take away what Martin was doing prior to hitting Zimmerman, take away what Zimmerman said or did up to the moment when the incident started, it is a simple case. Martin slugged Zimmerman to the ground. Martin sat on Zimmerman and beat his head into concrete. Zimmerman says he felt threatened at that moment. He was unable to run. He fatally shot Martin. Clearly, not a crime to act in self-defense.
> If Martin would have survived the gunshot, I believe the known facts support an assault charge against Martin.


We still don't have an eye witness to the beginning of the altercation, all we have is Zimmerman's account of what happened and it stands to reason he will try his best to make it sound like he was innocent in the whole event. If someone was following me, and I didn't know who this person was or what they wanted, I would think I was being stalked. I may have confronted the person too. But since we don't know how it all started, then it'll be interesting to see what forensics and evidence both parties will present.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> The knock out game is usually done in front of others as a way to impress them. How's doing it in private going to impress anyone?


How would I know?

I'm just playing along with Nevada's "what if" game.

My "what if" is every bit as valid as anyone elses. That's my point.

No one can know why martin punched zimmerman. All we know is that he did. It doesn't matter why unless there is evidence to back it up.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

pancho said:


> Again, you have not kept up with the story. There are medical reports. There are police records stating a broken nose and cuts to the back of the head. Please try to keep up.


Oh now I get it, police officers are z-ray techs! Try and sell that one... The police wrote down whatever Zimmerman claimed happen. Show me the x-rays! A "closed fracture" is not a broken nose. A closed fracture could have been a healed fracture from an earlier incident, hence the word "closed." 

Please try to keep up with the facts. Zimmerman had many opportunities when Martin was in sight but out of reach to say "Hey there fellow, what are you doing in my neighborhood?" WHy didn't he? Because you don't yell out to the deer or turkey before you shoot them...

I know it's hard to understand time...like starting from when the time Zimmerman began his hunt....you can focus all you want on what happen in the last few seconds, still doesn't change the timeline of Zimmerman hunting his prey. Not calling out "Stop, I have a question for you, stranger." Did Zimmerman have a vocal problem that you are somehow in the "knownledge" of, that the rest of us haven't seen?

Face it, Zimmerman was the agressor. You can not ignore the timeline.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

time said:


> How would I know?
> 
> I'm just playing along with Nevada's "what if" game.
> 
> ...


No one can know why Zimmerman didn't identify himself at the first opportunity. All we know is he didn't. Instead he chose to stalk Martin. His own words tell the story and all the evidence is there to back it up.

Hmm... see how that works when you look at the whole timeline.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

FreeRanger said:


> Where did I read that Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose? Didn't Zimmerman refuse treatment? Didn't he state his wife was taking care of him? Hmmm...yet I keep reading here on HT that he HAD a broken nose... his words, I haven't seen anything mentioning an x-ray. Without an x-ray, there is no broken nose.


Wrong. X-rays are rarely done for a broken nose. The truth is out there if you really want it. Search for his medical report from the day after the incident.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> No evidence to the contrary, zimmermans statements must be taken as fact. Especially when the available evidence backs up his story.


I have not seen any available evidence showing how the altercation got started, and no, we don't have to take Zimmerman's story as fact until it's proven one way or another. Zimmerman would be stupid to say anything except what would make him look his best. Since it's obvious his statements would be biased I don't know why his statements must be taken as fact.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> How would I know?
> 
> I'm just playing along with Nevada's "what if" game.
> 
> ...


I agree, and it's what I've been saying all along. NO ONE KNOWS what happened, other than Zimmerman and Martin. Nevada's scenario is as good as any one else's because it's all based on speculations trying to fill in the gaps. We know what happened after the altercation started, but don't know how it started.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> Ok, I can see backing up, but in order to end up where the altercation happened it would have been more than just backing up. They had to turn the corner to end up between the buildings. Zimmerman doesn't explain how they ended up on a different sidewalk than the one he was originally walking on to get to his truck. Also, unless I'm mistaken, Zimmerman said that Martin was on the other sidewalk when he yelled out to him. What made Zimmerman go back to that other sidewalk?


From the video it seems like there was side-stepping and pivoting. They didn't stay on the sidewalk. It's not like they walked back the way he came and took a right turn. They probably took the diagonal across the grass. Yes, they would have had to do a complete 180 degree switch in positions, which happens often in a fight, especially when one person is trying to get away.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I have not seen any available evidence showing how the altercation got started, and no, we don't have to take Zimmerman's story as fact until it's proven one way or another. Zimmerman would be stupid to say anything except what would make him look his best. Since it's obvious his statements would be biased I don't know why his statements must be taken as fact.


Because there's nothing else to go by!


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Wrong. X-rays are rarely done for a broken nose. The truth is out there if you really want it. Search for his medical report from the day after the incident.


OK, so now you are saying a broken nose is a subjective injury....again, that's Zimmerman's and his "hired expert" medical person's word. 

The jury is suppose to believe this decieving Zimmerman? Oh that's right he wasn't decieving when he played "code" words from his jail cell to his wife on the phone. That's right in court he was "expressing" his fifth amendment not to incriminate himself by telling about all the money he knew was available to him. Instead he lays claim a relative has the money, not him! LOL 

The truth is out there if you really want it. Zimmerman said and I paraphrase "I saw a stranger on public land, I gave chase, I caught up with him, I shot and killed him." Those are his own words on the video, are they not? Everything else is just clutter.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Because there's nothing else to go by!


I realize that, which is why it surprises me that so many people are willing to believe Zimmerman, the only living person who knows what happened, when he will natually try to make it look like he was not in the wrong.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> The knock out game is usually done in front of others as a way to impress them. How's doing it in private going to impress anyone?


Practice, practice, practice........


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Statements made only by Zimmerman. No eye witnesses saying how it started.


Zimmeman is the only eye witness on how it started. It is up to the courts to prove different. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove not guilty, they have to prove he is. Without anyone to support their "feelings", Zimmerman gets to walk. That's how court works.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I realize that, which is why it surprises me that so many people are willing to believe Zimmerman, the only living person who knows what happened, when he will natually try to make it look like he was not in the wrong.


I couldn't care less about Zimmerman...but our system requires proof before punishing people. That's why it's important that there is no proof for all these other theories. They may all be correct. So what? Without proof, it doesn't matter.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

FreeRanger said:


> OK, so now you are saying a broken nose is a subjective injury....again, that's Zimmerman's and his "hired expert" medical person's word.


Did I say subjective? Nope. A broken nose is usually diagnosed by physical examination. It's a very simple procedure and a trained physician can easily determine whether a nose is broken or not.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Zimmeman is the only eye witness on how it started. It is up to the courts to prove different. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove not guilty, they have to prove he is. Without anyone to support their "feelings", Zimmerman gets to walk. That's how court works.


Hmmmm what part of Zimmerman's confession are you not understanding? 

Zimmerman said "I left my home with a loaded gun. I saw a strange person. I got out of my vehicle and followed. I made contact with the stranger. I was loosing the fight so I shot him DEAD." At this point, Zimmerman needs to prove he is not guilty. That's how court works.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> I couldn't care less about Zimmerman...but our system requires proof before punishing people. That's why it's important that there is no proof for all these other theories. They may all be correct. So what? Without proof, it doesn't matter.


Proof?  Would that be Zimmerman admitting he shot Martin DEAD with his gun? Sounds like proof to me. LOL......no theory other than Zimmerman's own story.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Oh now I get it, police officers are z-ray techs! Try and sell that one... The police wrote down whatever Zimmerman claimed happen. Show me the x-rays! A "closed fracture" is not a broken nose. A closed fracture could have been a healed fracture from an earlier incident, hence the word "closed."
> 
> Please try to keep up with the facts. Zimmerman had many opportunities when Martin was in sight but out of reach to say "Hey there fellow, what are you doing in my neighborhood?" WHy didn't he? *Because you don't yell out to the deer or turkey before you shoot them...*
> 
> ...


If you are armed and hunting deer, you don't let them gore you, before you shoot. 
Does it really matter if Zimmerman said, "Pardon me sir, you look lost, can I offer you a ride home?" or if he yelled, " What do you think you are doing, prowling around behind these houses?" None of the conversation is permission to assault. 
Neighborhood Watch might have wished Zimmerman identified himself, but apparently he didn't. There's no crime in that, is there?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Proof? Would that be Zimmerman admitting he shot Martin DEAD with his gun? Sounds like proof to me. LOL......no theory other than Zimmerman's own story.


Oh, come on. Don't be silly. I doubt there are many that question if Zimmerman shot Martin. That has never been the concern. All the Courts have to prove is that Zimmerman shot Martin without fearing for his safety. That would be murder. But since their star witness is dead, they have no proof to convict. No evidence, no crime, no punishment.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Hmmmm what part of Zimmerman's confession are you not understanding?
> 
> Zimmerman said "I left my home with a loaded gun. I saw a strange person. I got out of my vehicle and followed. I made contact with the stranger. I was loosing the fight so I shot him DEAD." At this point, Zimmerman needs to prove he is not guilty. That's how court works.


Not so fast, Buster.
Zimmerman didnât say those things. The facts in the case are: Zimmerman left home with a loaded weapon that he is licensed to carry, Saw a person creeping around in the rain next to the back of some homes, he notified the police. On his walk back from getting street addresses, he was startled by Martin. Each person spoke, unexpectedly he slugged Zimmerman to the ground and continued the assault. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he shot him DEAD.


No one ever has to prove they are not guilty. You are either guilty, because there is evidence to prove it or you are innocent, because there isnât enough evidence to find him guilty.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Oh now I get it, police officers are z-ray techs! Try and sell that one... The police wrote down whatever Zimmerman claimed happen. Show me the x-rays! A "closed fracture" is not a broken nose. A closed fracture could have been a healed fracture from an earlier incident, hence the word "closed."
> 
> Please try to keep up with the facts. Zimmerman had many opportunities when Martin was in sight but out of reach to say "Hey there fellow, what are you doing in my neighborhood?" WHy didn't he? Because you don't yell out to the deer or turkey before you shoot them...
> 
> ...


Are you a physician? B/c it appears to me you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the broken nose. Did you read the MEDICAL report?? He had a broken nose. Why the fuss about cops being z-rays, whatever that may be?
For some reason you're ignoring the FACTS about the scuffs/abraisions on Martain's knuckles vs no such thing on Z's. 
Who slugged whom? 
Any other marks on Martian? 
A close range shot to the heart. So tragic, yes. Martain's fault tho.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We have no evidence about how the fist fight started except for Zimmerman's word. It could have happened a lot of ways, but Zimmerman claimed that he was attacked unprovoked. I don't buy it, and I don't think the jury will buy it either.


What anyone 'thinks' happened means nothing in a court room. What admissible evidence do you see that can show the attack was provoked? What admissible evidence do you see that can show how the fight started? You can't just introduce an 'alternative theory' w/o at least some evidence to back it up. 

A couple of big problems trying to sell your theory to a jury. First, as far as we know Martin had NO defensive wounds nor wounds consistent with being hit. Second, Zimmerman (again as far as we know) has no offensive wounds or marks. Kind of hard to make a case that Zimmerman started it when all the evidence shows he was the attackee (if that's a word) not the attacker.

And as has been pointed out time and time again its up to the state to prove what they say happened did happen. If there is reasonable doubt (such as the differences in the wounds) the state loses.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't run either, since running wasn't part of his story. If he was afraid for his life wouldn't he have tried to run?


Could you out run a 17 y.o.? Which is the safer option, turning your back on a possible attacker or keeping him in view? 

But IIRC Zimmerman was 'running' because according to his story he had already started to leave the area.




Nevada said:


> I don't know that Martin approached Zimmerman. In the girlfriend's statement, the first thing said was Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there. That sounds to be like Zimmerman could have approached Martin.


I don't recall did the girl actually hear Zimmerman or did Martin just tell her that's what was said? If she didn't hear Zimmerman it could just as easily have been Martin trying to make himself sound like a big man to a girl.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Unfortunately, all of the eye witnesses didn't see the start of the altercation. Zimmerman can say anything and there's no one who can rebut it.


And there is the reason Zimmerman can NOT be convicted. The state must PROVE its case and there is not going to be enough evidence to reach that burden of proof. AFAIK, the ONLY bit of evidence the state has that even MIGHT support their case is the statement from someone who heard over the phone. None of the physical evidence supports their case. None of the other people's statements support their case.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> We still don't have an eye witness to the beginning of the altercation, all we have is Zimmerman's account of what happened and it stands to reason he will try his best to make it sound like he


Wrong. We have physical evidence, or lack thereof. All of which supports Zimmerman's statements.




Sonshine said:


> was innocent in the whole event. If someone was following me, and I didn't know who this person was or what they wanted, I would think I was being stalked. I may have confronted the person too. But since we don't know how it all started, then it'll be interesting to see what forensics and evidence both parties will present.


You have just admitted that you can see Martin being the aggressor by confronting Zimmerman. Its things like that which put reasonable doubt into the minds of jurors.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I agree, and it's what I've been saying all along. NO ONE KNOWS what happened, other than Zimmerman and Martin. Nevada's scenario is as good as any one else's because it's all based on speculations trying to fill in the gaps. We know what happened after the altercation started, but don't know how it started.


And that people is what we call reasonable doubt.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Hmmmm what part of Zimmerman's confession are you not understanding?
> 
> Zimmerman said "I left my home with a loaded gun. I saw a strange person. I got out of my vehicle and followed. I made contact with the stranger. I was loosing the fight so I shot him DEAD." At this point, Zimmerman needs to prove he is not guilty. That's how court works.


You need to go back and look at my post on the FL law. It will tell you what the state must prove to convict. 

You also might want to take a few days to read up on how the court system in the United States works. I say a few days because if you are that confused it will take a while.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Proof? Would that be Zimmerman admitting he shot Martin DEAD with his gun? Sounds like proof to me. LOL......no theory other than Zimmerman's own story.


So anyone who shoots someone should be locked up for murder?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

FreeRanger said:


> Proof? Would that be Zimmerman admitting he shot Martin DEAD with his gun? Sounds like proof to me. LOL......no theory other than Zimmerman's own story.


Shooting someone dead does not automatically equal murder. You are not only misinformed about the facts of this case, but also about the law.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> The knock out game is usually done in front of others as a way to impress them. How's doing it in private going to impress anyone?


If I remember right it wasn't that long ago that you said you had never heard of the game. You also stated you had never seen or heard of a person hitting another one for no reason.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why does her precise relationship to Martin matter? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe her because you don't consider her to be his girlfriend?


Nevada, if you listen to her she didn't know anything about the incident and changed her story a couple of times.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Hmmmm what part of Zimmerman's confession are you not understanding?
> 
> Zimmerman said "I left my home with a loaded gun. I saw a strange person. I got out of my vehicle and followed. I made contact with the stranger. I was loosing the fight so I shot him DEAD." At this point, Zimmerman needs to prove he is not guilty. That's how court works.


And I thought Nevada had am imagination and liked to change the facts.
We now have a new champion.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> I have not seen any available evidence showing how the altercation got started, and no, we don't have to take Zimmerman's story as fact until it's proven one way or another. Zimmerman would be stupid to say anything except what would make him look his best. * Since it's obvious his statements would be biased I don't know why his statements must be taken as fact*.


Because we don't put people in prison unless we know they are guilty. There is no evidence that shows anything other than what zimmerman says. Thus he is innocent.

It's really simple.

It does not have to be "proven one way or the other". Innocent untill proven guilty.

Simple.

He does not have to prove he is innocent.

Simple.

Unless you can prove otherwise, zimmermans story is fact.

Simple.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> I agree, and it's what I've been saying all along. NO ONE KNOWS what happened, other than Zimmerman and Martin. Nevada's scenario is as good as any one else's because it's all based on speculations trying to fill in the gaps. We know what happened after the altercation started, but don't know how it started.


Then he is innocent.

Nevada's scenario is not as good as any because there is no evidence to support it.

We don't put people in prison for speculation. It requires proof. There is no proof.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> I realize that, which is why it surprises me that so many people are willing to believe Zimmerman, the only living person who knows what happened, when he will natually try to make it look like he was not in the wrong.


Because there is no evidence to indicate we should not believe him.

By your standards, every person accused of a crime must be lying because they don't want to go to jail. I'm sure 100% of the wrongfully convicted are pleased with the misconception that they were lying about their innocents so they wouldn't go to jail.

New report on wrongfull convictions in Virginia.



> The instituteâs researchers found that in 5 percent of homicide and sexual assault cases, DNA testing ruled out the convicted person. If the scope is narrowed to just the sexual assault convictions, DNA testing eliminated between 8 percent and 15 percent of convicted offenders. The wrongful conviction rate previously had been estimated at 3 percent or less.


New Report on Wrongful Convictions in Virginia | PoliceMisconduct.net

So, I say again, unless there is evidence to contrary, zimmermans story is fact.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Zimmerman *is the only one* who actually knows what happened that night. Prosecuting attorney can speculate all they wish, they still don't *know*. Even if we think Zimmerman is guilty (everyone remember O.J.) he still has to be considered INNOCENT until the state can show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. He may very well of been the aggressor, but since we have no witness or evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman's story holds more weight then the conjecture and speculation of the state.
Zimmerman could of easily acted in a stupid fashion. His ego may well of got him stuck in a bad situation. Unless the state can prove otherwise, it appears to me he acted in self defense. Now if he had used his head, he may not of been in a position to have to resort to self defense, however we can't legislate stupidity.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

pancho said:


> And I thought Nevada had am imagination and liked to change the facts.
> We now have a new champion.


Sure enough.... which fact did I change?

1.Zimmerman left his home with a loaded gun. Yes
2. He went looking for strangers? Yes
3. Followed stranger without identifying himself. Yes
4. Made contact with stranger. Yes
5. Shot and killed stranger. Yes

Which one of these facts didn't happen? His gun wasn't loaded? He wasn't looking for "strangers?" He did identify himself upon first opportunity? He didn't make contact with stranger? OH that's right Zimmerman didn't shoot and kill an unarmed teenager, that was self inflicted gun shot. LOL

WOW I am making it all up aren't I! LOL your too funny...

Take the timeline back even further...
1. Zimmerman tries to become a cop and fails. Shows desire to control others. 
2. Zimmerman helps form a non-sanctioned "neighborhood" watch then self appoints himself "captain." Create an alibi for hunting down stranger with loaded gun.
3. Zimmerman gets frustrated that he can't stop the local crimes in "his" territory. Now is motivated to "stop" anyone who looks in his eyes "out of place."
Continue the timeline above.

Yeah I don't understand the laws of USA. The public is free in America to go shooting our neighbors... I know people who do that as a hobby. No crime in doing that...he is for SURE innocent...he was joking when he said he followed the teenager and shot and kill him. It was all fake...especially his confession.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

jaredI said:


> Zimmerman *is the only one* who actually knows what happened that night. Prosecuting attorney can speculate all they wish, they still don't *know*. Even if we think Zimmerman is guilty (everyone remember O.J.) he still has to be considered INNOCENT until the state can show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. He may very well of been the aggressor, but since we have no witness or evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman's story holds more weight then the conjecture and speculation of the state.
> Zimmerman could of easily acted in a stupid fashion. His ego may well of got him stuck in a bad situation. Unless the state can prove otherwise, it appears to me he acted in self defense. Now if he had used his head, he may not of been in a position to have to resort to self defense, however we can't legislate stupidity.


The prosecutor doesn't need to speculate. Zimmerman said I followed stranger and shot him dead. You think the jury isn't going to hear that? Selective hearing and selective timeline of the incident. It appears he was looking to hunt down anyone who didn't fit into his image of the neighborhood. Try telling me one more time why a human can't walk down the sidewalk talking on the phone? I think nearly all cell phone owners have done this. Tell me one more time why all humans must walk with a certain "approved" gait? I walk with a limp. I have disabled friends that shuffle. Tell me one more time why having a hoodie on is a problem? Dress code in Sanford?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> Wrong. We have physical evidence, or lack thereof. All of which supports Zimmerman's statements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unlike many on here, I am not convinced that Zimmerman was not the agressor. He was following Martin, which could be considered stalking, which is also illegal. Martin responded to being followed, at least that's how it appears to me. Zimmerman, by his own account on the video, was heading to his truck by backtracked when Martin called out to him. If Zimmerman had not back tracked this would never have happened.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> And that people is what we call reasonable doubt.


And that, people, is why all the speculation in the world won't make a bit of difference. That's why we need to wait until all the evidence is brought out in the trial and let the courts do their job instead of putting a dead boy on trial with all of the allegations that he was stoned, or casing the apartments, etc, all of which there is no evidence to support, at least none I have seen or seen others posting here.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> If I remember right it wasn't that long ago that you said you had never heard of the game. You also stated you had never seen or heard of a person hitting another one for no reason.


I had not heard of the game until someone in one of these threads posted about it. Then I researched it and in every case I found it was always done in a group setting. Not sure what that has to do with what I posted, unless you can show where people did it without others around.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> And I thought Nevada had am imagination and liked to change the facts.
> We now have a new champion.


Where was he wrong in that statement?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> Because we don't put people in prison unless we know they are guilty. There is no evidence that shows anything other than what zimmerman says. Thus he is innocent.
> 
> It's really simple.
> 
> ...


What you say or I say doesn't amount to a hill of beans, it's what's decided in a court of law.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> Then he is innocent.
> 
> Nevada's scenario is not as good as any because there is no evidence to support it.
> 
> We don't put people in prison for speculation. It requires proof. There is no proof.


That's for the courts to decide.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Unlike many on here, I am not convinced that Zimmerman was not the agressor. He was following Martin, which could be considered stalking, which is also illegal. Martin responded to being followed, at least that's how it appears to me. Zimmerman, by his own account on the video, was heading to his truck by backtracked when Martin called out to him. If Zimmerman had not back tracked this would never have happened.


It does not matter what you are convinced of. All that matters is evidence. You have no evidence to support your veiw.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> That's for the courts to decide.


Again, you have no evidence to the contrary. You admit you have seen no evidence that contradicts what zimmerman said.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> And that, people, is why all the speculation in the world won't make a bit of difference. That's why we need to wait until all the evidence is brought out in the trial and let the courts do their job* instead of putting a dead boy on trial with all of the allegations that he was stoned, or casing the apartments, etc, all of which there is no evidence to support, at least none I have seen or seen others posting here*.


There is evidence to support that he was stoned and casing apartments. Just because you ignore it, does not mean that it does not exist.



> Trayvon Martin Case:* Evidence *Of Marijuana Found In Martin's Blood


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/trayvon-martin-case-marijuana-found-in-blood_n_1525840.html



> Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area.......
> 
> Zimmerman: Looking at all the houses.


http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Some people have a selective memory.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Just a reminder to those people who keep insisting that marijuana does not make a person attack another one.
Just look at the report on the man who was high and chewed another man's face off. 
Look at what they found when they did a drug screen.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> It does not matter what you are convinced of. All that matters is evidence. You have no evidence to support your veiw.


And no one else has evidence to support who the agressor was. That's why it'll go through the court system to see what evidence there is and if it goes before a jury what they believe happened.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> Again, you have no evidence to the contrary. You admit you have seen no evidence that contradicts what zimmerman said.


I didn't say I had any evidence, just that it was up to the courts to decide if Zimmerman's account can convince a jury. Unlike others on here, I have not claimed that Martin was innocent or guilty and have not claimed that Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I prefer to wait until ALL the evidence is presented in a court of law. However, I have as much right to post my theories as to what happened as others, but I have tried to refrain from that, instead trying to stick with what evidence I have seen and commenting on that.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> There is evidence to support that he was stoned and casing apartments. Just because you ignore it, does not mean that it does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They found "trace" amounts of a chemical found in maijuana, that doesn't mean he was stoned. Looking at houses does not equate with checking them out with ill intent. I didn't realize it was illegal to look at houses. Some people refuse to even consider that things could have been different than their preconcieved notions.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Just a reminder to those people who keep insisting that marijuana does not make a person attack another one.
> Just look at the report on the man who was high and chewed another man's face off.
> Look at what they found when they did a drug screen.


Link please. If it's the one I'm thinking of this was not marijuana, but a synthetic version.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Link please. If it's the one I'm thinking of this was not marijuana, but a synthetic version.


I will let you do your own research. You wouldn't believe me anyway.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> They found "trace" amounts of a chemical found in maijuana, that doesn't mean he was stoned. Looking at houses does not equate with checking them out with ill intent. I didn't realize it was illegal to look at houses. Some people refuse to even consider that things could have been different than their preconcieved notions.


I don't have preconcieved notions. I've seen the evidence that has been released. Based on that evidence, zimmerman is not guilty. Untill new evidence is released, there is no evidence against zimmerman. Do you not agree? If you do not agree, please tell me what evidence shows zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Also based on the evidence, there is a valid arguement that martin was stoned and casing property. I have shown the evidence.

You said,



> all of which there is *no evidence to support*, at least none I have seen or seen others posting here


There is evidence to support.

I didn't say looking at houses is illegal. 

It is evidence to support a theory.

THC in the blood is evidence to support a theory.

No witness to him looking at property and no THC in the blood is no evidence. But, there was evidence, eh?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Link please. If it's the one I'm thinking of this was not marijuana, but a synthetic version.





> Rudy Eugene, AKA the Miami Zombie, was not high on bath salts when he ate Ronald Poppo's face last month. The toxicology report found only marijuana in his system-- not the synthetic drugs the media was hoping for.


"Miami Zombie" Was Not High on Bath Salts, Toxicology Report Shows -- Society's Child -- Sott.net


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I didn't say I had any evidence, just that it was up to the courts to decide if Zimmerman's account can convince a jury. Unlike others on here, I have not claimed that Martin was innocent or guilty and have not claimed that Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I prefer to wait until ALL the evidence is presented in a court of law. However, I have as much right to post my theories as to what happened as others, but I have tried to refrain from that, instead trying to stick with what evidence I have seen and commenting on that.


Lots of people get confused over this part of the Court process. Zimmerman and his Attorney do not need to prove he is not guilty. It is the burden of the Prosecution to prove Zimmerman is guilty. So, since there is no damming evidence, they can't make a case. This will all be explained to the Jury. If they follow their lawful duties and instructions, they'll have to find him innocent. 

All the evidence that the Prosecution has must be made available to the Defense. Then it becomes available through Freedom of Information Act, into the hands of the NEWS. Then we all hear it. As you've seen here, some have selective hearing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why does her precise relationship to Martin matter? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe her because you don't consider her to be his girlfriend?


We shouldn't believe her because she told two *conflicting* versions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman didn't believe he was *in any danger*.


LOL

Yes he both DID was WAS

Where do you come up with this stuff?
Do you REALLY so easily lead by *media word games*?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *Zimmerman wanted to detain* Martin so the police could interrogate him. *Zimmerman made it clear* to Martin that he wasn't going anyplace, but Martin objected. A fistfight followed. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he *shot Martin in anger*.


 
More *fantasy suppositions* based on nothing more than your desire to see Zimmerman guilty of SOMETHING


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More *fantasy suppositions* based on nothing more than your desire to see Zimmerman guilty of SOMETHING


No supposition at all. Zimmerman's frustration that to many suspects get away was clear.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Hmmmm what part of Zimmerman's confession are you not understanding?
> 
> Zimmerman said "I left my home with a loaded gun. I saw a strange person. I got out of my vehicle and followed. I made contact with the stranger. I was loosing the fight so I shot him DEAD." At this point, *Zimmerman needs to prove he is not guilty.* That's how court works.


Once more your IGNORANCE shows

Why don't you LEARN *before *posting?

Most of your information is *totally wrong*, and obviously biased.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _Zimmerman didn't run either, since running wasn't part of his story. If he was afraid for his life wouldn't he have tried to run?_


He wasn't afraid for his life UNTIL Martin was sitting on him, beating his head into the sidewalk

It's pretty hard to run in that position

But you already KNOW that


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Unlike many on here, I am not convinced that Zimmerman was not the agressor. He was following Martin, which *could be considered stalking*, which is also illegal. Martin responded to being followed, at least that's how it appears to me. Zimmerman, by his own account on the video, was heading to his truck by backtracked when Martin called out to him. If Zimmerman had not back tracked this would never have happened.


Obvioulsy you don't know the meaning of "stalking" in a LEGAL sense, and you keep saying "in the video" Zimmerman "backtracked", but what he SAID was *Martin approached HIM* from behind.


Maybe you should watch it a few more times


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Stalking is quite a bit more than just following a suspicious person. It also isn't considered stalking just by one incident.
I know a man who went to prison for stalking. It took over a year of constant videos, phone records, and eye witnesses before he was even charged.
You can follow a person staying within 12 inches of them all day long and it isn't considered stalking.
People who think Zimmerman was stalking Martin do not know the law on stalking.
Just more racism talking.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

The fact that he was not charged for stalking even though the villagers were marching with pitchforks and torches in hand should give people a hint.


----------



## defenestrate (Aug 23, 2005)

FreeRanger said:


> A "closed fracture" is not a broken nose. A closed fracture could have been a healed fracture from an earlier incident, hence the word "closed."


No, a closed fracture means that the break is not compound, i.e. the break does not protrude through the skin.

You can't just call something what you want. A healed fracture is not a closed fracture, and noone other than you is claiming that it is.

Closed Fracture

Definition: A closed fracture is a broken bone that does not penetrate the skin. This is an important distinction because when a broken bone penetrates the skin there is a need for more immediate treatment, and an operation is often required to clean the area of the fracture. Furthermore, because of the risk of infection, there are more often problems associated with healing when a fracture is open to the skin. 

I hope that is helpful for those who were/are thrown by the word "closed".


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Some people are easily thrown by big words like closed, eye witness, proof, assault, stalking, legal,and conflicting.
You know, all of those words that explain what really happened.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FreeRanger said:


> Sure enough.... which fact did I change?
> 
> 1.Zimmerman left his home with a loaded gun. Yes
> 2. He went looking for strangers? Yes
> ...


Obviously you do not understand the laws in this country. 

I'm no sure what you mean as sanctioned. You can't buy the neighborhood watch sign from Walmart or any other retail oulet. They're set up after training and in conjunction with a local police department. Any way you look at it, the neighborhood watch was set up in the Twin Lakes community with the involvement of the Sandford police. Here's a article where the reporter talked to Wendy Dorival, volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department said in an interview. 

"Despite the frequency of his calls to the police, Zimmerman had only become a member of the neighborhood watch in September 2011. In fact, Twin Lakesâ neighborhood watch itself did not exist before then, according to Wendy Dorival, volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department.

Dorival first met with Twin Lakes residents to give a neighborhood-watch presentation on the evening of Sept. 22. The meeting was initiated by a call from Zimmerman, she said.

âHe was the one who contacted me at first to get it started there,â Dorival said.

Dorival recalled that about two dozen residents showed up to hear her speak about the responsibilities of neighborhood-watch volunteers.

âThere were about three or four burglaries that had happened that people were upset about, and thatâs what initiated me to get out there for them to start a neighborhood watch,â Dorival said.

Part of the instruction Dorival gives new volunteers, she said, includes when to call 911 and when to call non-emergency numbers. Both lines go to the same operator, Dorival told the Daily Beast, but the different numbers allow the operator to triage calls.

âI basically tell them you call non-emergency dispatch if you come home after work and you notice somebody took a bike off your porch,â Dorival said. âA 911 call is when there is a crime in progress. If someoneâs life or property is in danger, you call 911.â

At the end of the Dorivalâs presentation, she invited residents to choose a neighborhood-watch leader.

âI went through all the roles and responsibilities for neighborhood watch and I said, âNow itâs time to choose your community leader,â Dorival said. *âAnd pretty much the people chose George Zimmerman as the coordinator.â*

At the end of the meeting, Dorival said, she handed out her business card and told residents to call her if they had any questions. She never received any calls, she said.

âThere is no set way of how you run your neighborhood watch,â Dorival said. âItâs up to the community how to run it.â

According to the instructional materials prepared by the Sanford police department, one of Zimmermanâs responsibilities as neighborhood watch coordinator was to act as a liaison between the Sanford police and the neighborhood-watch volunteers. A police slideshow (PDF) Dorival screened at her presentation says the neighborhood watch is âNOT the vigilante police.â

âA 911 call is when there is a crime in progress. If someoneâs life or property is in danger, you call 911.â

Dorival said she only heard from Zimmerman once after the September meeting, when he sent her an email regarding a burglary suspect. She said she has not been contacted by anyone from the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch since Martin was shot."


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Lots of people get confused over this part of the Court process. Zimmerman and his Attorney do not need to prove he is not guilty. It is the burden of the Prosecution to prove Zimmerman is guilty. So, since there is no damming evidence, they can't make a case. This will all be explained to the Jury. If they follow their lawful duties and instructions, they'll have to find him innocent.
> 
> All the evidence that the Prosecution has must be made available to the Defense. Then it becomes available through Freedom of Information Act, into the hands of the NEWS. Then we all hear it. As you've seen here, some have selective hearing.


I'm not ignorant of the law regarding this, I just think that many are jumping the gun by already condemning Martin before we even hear all of the evidence. I don't know what all the evidence is, none of us do until it is presented in court. So I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> I don't have preconcieved notions. I've seen the evidence that has been released. Based on that evidence, zimmerman is not guilty. Untill new evidence is released, there is no evidence against zimmerman. Do you not agree? If you do not agree, please tell me what evidence shows zimmerman is guilty of murder.
> 
> Also based on the evidence, there is a valid arguement that martin was stoned and casing property. I have shown the evidence.
> 
> ...


It is not illegal to lood at houses, so no, no evidence. He had trace amounts of a chemical in his system, which can remain in a person's system for several weeks, so no, no evidence he was stoned. I have not seen all the evidence, so I know of no evidence that says he's guilty of murder, again, that's for the courts to decide, not wanna be lawyers.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> "Miami Zombie" Was Not High on Bath Salts, Toxicology Report Shows -- Society's Child -- Sott.net


I had not seen this before, but still, according to your own link it states that it was not the pot that caused this behavior, but that the man was mentally unstable.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obvioulsy you don't know the meaning of "stalking" in a LEGAL sense, and you keep saying "in the video" Zimmerman "backtracked", but what he SAID was *Martin approached HIM* from behind.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should watch it a few more times


Maybe you should. Since he walked past the sidewalk that Martin was on, he had to back track in order for Martin to attack him there.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Stalking is quite a bit more than just following a suspicious person. It also isn't considered stalking just by one incident.
> I know a man who went to prison for stalking. It took over a year of constant videos, phone records, and eye witnesses before he was even charged.
> You can follow a person staying within 12 inches of them all day long and it isn't considered stalking.
> People who think Zimmerman was stalking Martin do not know the law on stalking.
> Just more racism talking.


Pot, meet the Kettle. You are the one who has admitted to being a racist.

Stalking

What is stalking? 

Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.
The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.

Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.

Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.

Stalking is more common than you might think, although it is hard to get accurate figures because law enforcement organizations have only recently started keeping records. Best estimates indicate that as many as 1.4 million Americans are stalked each year; and that 1 in 20 women will become targets of stalking behavior at least once during their lifetimes. Many men are also stalked.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Pot, meet the Kettle. You are the one who has admitted to being a racist.


Yes, I am a racist. At least I will admit it. I don't try to hide it. Some people will try to tell us they are not racist, just everything a person of some color does is right, even with evidence proves them wrong. They either refuse to accept the proof or make some excuses for the person of a certain color.
That is their right, just as I have the same right.

Mostly I am prejudice to any group of people that demand certain rights just because of their color. Such as a group that demands they be hired for a job where their only qualifications is their color. Such as a group that demands they be allowed in a school when they are less qualified than people of another color. Such as a group that says it is impossible for them to be racist because they are a certain color. Such as a group that will only allow members of their own color in special events and organizations.
Such as a group that demands they be given special treatment just because of their color.

So, yes I am a racist. If any person belongs to a group such as one who demands any of the above, I am prejudice against them.
Any person willing to work for what they want and not demand it because of their color I am not prejudice against. No matter the color of their outer layer. My racism goes deeper than skin color.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> It is not illegal to lood at houses, so no, no evidence. He had trace amounts of a chemical in his system, which can remain in a person's system for several weeks, so no, no evidence he was stoned. I have not seen all the evidence, so I know of no evidence that says he's guilty of murder, again, that's for the courts to decide, not wanna be lawyers.


:hysterical:

Heh.

Carrying a conceled weapon with a permit is not illegal either. So, we can rule out zimmermans gun as evidence, eh?

Your whole post is ridiculous.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> I had not seen this before, but still, according to your own link it states that it was not the pot that caused this behavior, but that the man was mentally unstable.


I didn't say pot caused the kid to do anything. I supplied the link you asked for.

I like pot. It does not cause crime.

Your insistance that the kid was not stoned, that evidence of THC in his blood is not evidence, shows that you choose to portray martin as a saint that must be avenged. Your refusal to see evidence that does not support your veiws is the issue.

Untill you reccognise that your own bias is making you blind to the facts, you will never be able to see truth.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Pot, meet the Kettle. You are the one who has admitted to being a racist.
> 
> Stalking
> 
> ...


Explain to me why zimmerman has not been charged with stalking please.

You do know it is illegal, right?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> Heh.
> 
> ...


As are you if you would prefer to make it personal instead of debating what was posted.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> I didn't say pot caused the kid to do anything. I supplied the link you asked for.
> 
> I like pot. It does not cause crime.
> 
> ...


By your very own words you state that pot does not cause crime, so how is me saying that the fact that he had pot in his system did not turn him into a mad man being biased. I think you are too blind by your own preconcieved notions to even hear another aspect of the case. I have not stated that anyone was guilty or innocent. I have not claimed that anyone was a saint. But if you choose to put words in someone else's mouth then I guess you can see whatever you want.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

time said:


> Explain to me why zimmerman has not been charged with stalking please.
> 
> You do know it is illegal, right?


I don't have to explain anything to you, since I am not the prosecuter nor the defender in this case and you are not on the jury, nor the judge nor an attorney representing either side. You're whole ridiculous veiws that just because I would rather wait and see what the actual courts have to say in the matter rather than believe everything the media and you choose to spout that I am bias. Since I have not claimed that Zimmerman is either innocent or guilty in this case, then it would seem you are the one who is biased since you have already made up your mind without knowing all the facts that will be presented in the courts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No supposition at all. Zimmerman's frustration that to many suspects get away was clear.


That's NOT what you stated:



> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _*Zimmerman wanted to detain* Martin so the police could interrogate him. *Zimmerman made it clear* to Martin that he wasn't going anyplace, but Martin objected. A fistfight followed. Zimmerman was losing the fight, so he *shot Martin in anger*_


You claim he "wanted to detain" him.

All the* evidence* shows he only wanted to *keep him in sight*

*All the rest you your FANTASY*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Maybe you should. Since he walked* past the sidewalk that Martin was on*, he had to *back track* in order for Martin to attack him there.


The video shows he was only a* few FEET past it*

Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground.

You're trying to imply he travelled some distance to reach Martin, when the video clearly shows it was a *VERY small area* they were talking about.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The video shows he was only a* few FEET past it*
> 
> Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground.
> 
> You're trying to imply he travelled some distance to reach Martin, when the video clearly shows it was a *VERY small area* they were talking about.


I don't believe I stated any distance, just that they were on different sidewalks and made a point that both of them ended up on the sidewalk Martin was on, NOT the one Zimmerman was on that took him to his truck. No one has really answered the question on how could Martin have attacked Zimmerman when they weren't even on the same sidewalk? Zimmerman, in the video, showed that he was already past the sidewalk Martin was on, yet it was the sidewalk Martin was on that the altercation took place. So, how did Zimmerman end up where Martin was?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I don't believe I stated any distance, just that they were on different sidewalks and made a point that both of them ended up on the sidewalk Martin was on, NOT the one Zimmerman was on that took him to his truck. No one has really answered the question on how could Martin have attacked Zimmerman when they weren't even on the same sidewalk? Zimmerman, in the video, showed that he was already past the sidewalk Martin was on, yet it was the sidewalk Martin was on that the altercation took place. So, how did Zimmerman end up where Martin was?


Sonshine, have you ever been in a fight for your life?
You don't stay in one place. There are no rules about staying where you are standing.
I do know when I hit a person they usually fall a distance from where they were standing when I hit them. They do not drop in place.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Unlike many on here, I am not convinced that Zimmerman was not the agressor.


Depends on how you define "aggressor". There are some problems; the fact that Zimmerman had no offensive wounds, such as skinned knuckles, and there are no defensive wounds on Martin, such as bruising where he was struck.




Sonshine said:


> He was following Martin, which could be considered stalking, which is also illegal.


I'm fairly sure it can NOT be considered stalking. Following a person that you just saw does not rise to the level of stalking. Following a person in a public place is not illegal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I didn't say I had any evidence, just that it was up to the courts to decide if Zimmerman's account can convince a jury. Unlike others on here, I have not claimed that Martin was innocent or guilty and have not claimed that Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I prefer to wait until ALL the evidence is presented in a court of law. However, I have as much right to post my theories as to what happened as others, but I have tried to refrain from that, instead trying to stick with what evidence I have seen and commenting on that.


The problem is the state has yet to show enough evidence to even reach the burden of proof to show at M2 was committed much less Zimmerman did it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I* don't believe I stated any distance*, just that they were on different sidewalks and made a point that both of them ended up on the sidewalk Martin was on, NOT the one Zimmerman was on that took him to his truck. No one has really answered the question on how could Martin have attacked Zimmerman when they weren't even on the same sidewalk? Zimmerman, in the video, showed that he was already past the sidewalk Martin was on, yet it was the sidewalk Martin was on that the altercation took place. So, how did Zimmerman end up where Martin was?


I said you "IMPLIED", not stated.


It's plain in the video the "sidewalks" ( it's really all one sidewalk with some intersections) were *only a few FEET apart*.

Zimmerman described where he was standing to the police officer who was what appeared to be about *10 feet away*, and said "he was about where you are".

I don't understand why you find it so hard to comprehend that they didn't remain in the EXACT same spot during the attack, or why it makes any diference, since all the* EVIDENCE* shows Martin did in FACT attack Zimmerman, causing "serious bodily injury".

There is NO evidence that shows anything else at all, so I also don't understand why you keep saying "Let's wait and see the evidence"

It's all been presented, in accordance with FL law


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Sonshine*
> _He was following Martin, which could be considered stalking, which is also illegal._


Your diefinition says a "SERIES" of actions.

http://www.aware.org/stalking/stalkgeninfo.shtml


> Stalking
> 
> What is stalking?
> 
> Fundamentally, stalking is a* series of actions*


http://www.aware.org/stalking/stalkgeninfo.shtmlhttp://www.aware.org/stalking/stalkgeninfo.shtml

Why argue a point you know is not true?

Zimmerman was not "stalking" Martin in the LEGAL sense of the word and NOTHING he did was illegal at all


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't understand the confusion over the sidewalk. Zimmerman followed Martin. Martin turned to the right and disappered into the commons area made up of the back yards. When Zimmerman reached the point where he could see all the way through the commons area, he could not see Martin. That meant Martin had hid as soon as he turned the corner on one of the patios behind he privacy screen between two of the units. 

Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher at that time who wanted an address. Zimmerman told the disaptcher there where no addresses there. The dispatcher suggested that Zimmerman didn't need to continue following. 

Zimmerman turned to walk out of he commons area and back to his truck when Martin then approached him from behind from the left side. Which makes since if you look at the layout. Martin then confronted Zimmerman who was probably thinking about finding an address and meeting the police. Zimmerman by that time was off the phone with dispatch. There was no need for dispatch to stay on the line with Zimmerman. 

When Martin reappeared, Zimmerman reached for his phone to call dispatch again but never got a chance because Martin sucker punched him. It's obvious that Martin never let Zimmerman get out of the commons area. Rather than Zimmerman trying to detain Martin, it was Martin that confronted Zimmerman and then tried to, in a sense, detain 
Zimmerman. There's a good chance Martin overheard Zimmerman's conversation with dispatch from his hiding place.

With the trouble Martin was in at school, and his exile from his home by his mother, it seems reasonable that Martin wasn't supposed to go anywhere while he was at his father's fiance's. My guess is his parents figured there was no way he could get into trouble. The father's story, btw, stinks.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Why does her precise relationship to Martin matter? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe her because you don't consider her to be his girlfriend?


It has nothing to do with what I consider.

We know from her twitters that she and Trayvon weren't anything more than acquaintances or however friends, but not boyfriend/girlfriend, are defined by that generation. *She confirmed that in her statement.* 

*Crump however did lie in the press package he assembled.* Why is conjecture. Crump did need a way of hanging validity on the misbegotten mess he shopped to the media. What better way than to depict a heartbroken teenager who heard her beloved in the last seconds before his death at the hands of a racist gunman. Crump's problem is Zimmerman's background which many who still believe the falsehoods Crump planted never bothered to check. Trying to play the race card led to the media stepping in deep do-do.

*Here's where the "girlfriend's" statement comes apart.* 

At one point she said she told Martin to run home. Then she said Martin said he wasn't going to run. In the video she said she could hear Martin was out of breath. There was no hint from the 911 telephone recording of Zimmerman that he was out of breath. Of the two, Martin being younger was probably in better shape. When you look at the layout and the distances, even I can run that distance at my age and not be out of breath.

I thought it was interesting that whoever questioned the "girlfriend" fed her the answers. Including one in which he acknowledged that Crump had got to her first. I haven't checked the timeline to see how much time elapsed before Crump talked to the girl and the police finally interviewed her.

I noticed that the police did not ask her why she did not attend Martin's funeral. Instead the cop assumed she was distraught over Martin's death as Crump put out to the media when he had to backfit why she skipped the funeral. Her twitters show she really didn't GiveAS that Martin died. Martin was referred to as "that boy." 

I need to listen to the video again for other discrepancies. In a way she comes across as a kid who is caught doing something bad and they drop their voice when confronted and questioned.

O'mara needs to find someone who's an expert to go over that video with a fine tooth comb to listen to her voice and the inflections. There's more there than I found. I don't think she's out and out lying. I do believe she is shading the truth.

The other thing that was a WTH was her mentioning that Trayon went to the store to get something for his little brother. I'm not sure what's going on with the little brother part of the sales pitch. Of course it sounds just dreadful that Trayvon went to the 7-Eleven to buy something for his little brother and was stalked, gunned down and murdered by a racist wannabe cop with a depraved mind.

The question that needs to be answered is what happened to the little brother? The poor kid was left all alone to watch basketball by himself. Trayon's father never asked the kid what happened to Trayvon. If he had, he would have known Trayon went out for a snack and disappeared. If we are to believe Nevada, the father should have immediately been concerned about Trayvon being abducted. A normal father would have at least walked the neighborhood and gone as far as the 7-Eleven knowing that Trayvon disappeared almost 8 hours earlier. If he had called the cops based on what the little brother knew, he would have immediately found out about the killing.

That did not happen. What's up with that? There's something there either on the "girlfriend's" part or the father's. In a later accounts, the little brother seems to have evaporated. Crump was obviously unable to get the two stories synced.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20581404,00.html

Crump's problem is he got involved too late. By the time he did his coaching, the school incidents were public, the twitters were public and the facebook entries were public. This looks like a really crappy effort on Crump's part to build an alternative truth. It doesn't work because there are too many inconsistencies for anyone with an open mind.

Fortunately for Zimmerman, the internet and its denizens threw Crump out at third. He couldn't erase the information by deleting Trayvon's accounts.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> The problem is the state has yet to show enough evidence to even reach the burden of proof to show at M2 was committed much less Zimmerman did it.


They had to have shown something in order to charge him and have a judge set bail.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They had to have shown something in order to charge him and have a judge set bail.


That indictment was a JOKE and would have been laughed out of most courts.

There was no evidence then that wasn't available in the months when Zimmerman WASN"T charged with anything at all

This is all *PUBLIC RELATIONS*


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That indictment was a JOKE and would have been laughed out of most courts.
> 
> There was no evidence then that wasn't available in the months when Zimmerman WASN"T charged with anything at all
> 
> This is all *PUBLIC RELATIONS*


It's should be obvious to anyone willing to look at all the facts that Crump's hiring of a publicist to create the story of an innocent Trayvon Martin gunned down by a wannabe cop with a depraved mind was an act of extreme deception. It was put together with the calculated goal of demonizing Zimmerman and fostering hate. Based on the foaming at the mouth "We are Trayvon" supporters on the internet, it's obvious they got all the facts they care to know from Crump's patched together story.

Fortunately for Zimmerman the media, having never seen a race card they didn't greet with glee, decided to embellish the story to make it more believable. When they did that it was so outrageous quite a few caught on to the hatchet job. 

Crump supplied the rope. The media built the gallows. The result being the instant outrage from the hang'em high crowd who fancies themselves sensitive to race issues. Of course the publicity hound prosecutor thinking about reelection and the biased judge were only too happy to oblige. 

What happened instead is a worsening of race relations. It's a sad day in America when the defense lawyer has to adopt a strategy of delay hoping to allow the manufactured rage to die down enough to allow the defendent to get a fair trial. 

There's people out there that will never agree that the plain as day manipulations by Crump and the media ever happened. Now that is predjudice. And deep down they're proud of their sensitivity to racial issues. 

The question those people need to ask themselves is how many will die because of this. Crump and the media gave the real racists another reason to kill Blacks and whites. Innocent people will be hurt and die because of this. The young white racists in Mississippi didn't need the Trayvon episode to attack and kill a Black forty some year old auto worker on the way home. There will be more of that on both sides just because of a scumbag lawyer's actions.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> They had to have shown something in order to charge him and have a judge set bail.


Not really. They had to do something to stop all of the blacks from rioting.
Zimmerman was only arrested because of the complaints from the blacks and the media keeping everyone worked up.

The police could come arrest you for Martin's murder. A judge would then set bail. They do not have to have anything to arrest a person. All of the media frenzy was enough.

What do you think would have happened if they would have went with the original findings and said it was self defence and Zimmerman would not be arrested?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm watching Zimmerman's bail hearing. It looks like his lawyer has cleaned him up. That funky beard is gone and he's growing some hair on his head. He doesn't look nearly as much like a skinhead as he did.

Edited to add --

They are presenting a large amount of evidence. I'm not sure what relevance a lot of the evidence has to bail. I'm guessing that both sides are using this hearing as an opportunity to take care of various procedural issues that have nothing to do with bail. Still, I have no idea why they are taking the time to have to fire rescue worker testify about Zimmerman's injuries during a bail hearing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm watching Zimmerman's bail hearing. It looks like his lawyer has cleaned him up. That funky beard is gone and he's growing some hair on his head. He doesn't look nearly as much like a skinhead as he did.
> 
> Edited to add --
> 
> They are presenting a large amount of evidence. I'm not sure what relevance a lot of the evidence has to bail. I'm guessing that both sides are using this hearing as an opportunity to take care of various procedural issues that have nothing to do with bail. Still, I have no idea why they are taking the time to have to fire rescue worker testify about Zimmerman's injuries during a bail hearing.


Trying to get the facts out in the open.
You will notice there are still people even on this forum that don't believe Zimmerman had any injuries.
If they can get the proof shown in court it will only help Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Trying to get the facts out in the open.
> You will notice there are still people even on this forum that don't believe Zimmerman had any injuries.
> If they can get the proof shown in court it will only help Zimmerman.


Maybe it will help him, but I still don't see the relevance to bail. At any rate, the judge didn't seem to mind all of the evidence being presented, so as long as the judge is going along with it and the court has time I have no problem with hearing irrelevant evidence.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Maybe it will help him, but I still don't see the relevance to bail. At any rate, the judge didn't seem to mind all of the evidence being presented, so as long as the judge is going along with it and the court has time I have no problem with hearing irrelevant evidence.


It is relevant to bail.

The defence is showing that zimmerman has a good chance of being found innocent. This makes two very good points.

1. They believe he is innocent so he has no reason to be a flight risk.

2. It would be an injustice to keep him locked away for a crime he didn't commit.

It also shows a high degree of confidence. Most of the time, defence wants to keep things under their hat till trial.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The paramediic testified exactly as he should given his knowledge. I was impressed by O'Mara. Hopefully they'll get the other experts they need to start unreveling the loose threads, Crump could not tie up.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Maybe it will help him, but I still don't see the relevance to bail. At any rate, the judge didn't seem to mind all of the evidence being presented, so as long as the judge is going along with it and the court has time I have no problem with hearing irrelevant evidence.


Thanks for the alert, Nevada. That was worth watching.

The judge is supposed to remain impartial. What O'Mara did was to introduce evidence that the judge will look at before deciding. Entering the 7-Eleven video was an excellent tactic. O'Mara pulled it off. I'm surprised the State did not object. The judge can't look at that and not wonder what was going on with Martin that night.

O'Mara also slammed the murder 2 charge and got away without the State objecting. The State's attorney came across like someone who's watching the pennies and missing the big picture. He's probably real good at punctuation.

I also liked volunteering Zimmerman to speak on O'Mara's terms. Both the State's attorney and the judge lost a little skin there. O'Mara realized the bond hearing was not just a bond hearing. Even the judge acknowledged that without rancor.

I was surprised that Martin's parents took time off from their busy travel schedule to attend with the scumbag Crump.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I'm watching Zimmerman's bail hearing. It looks like his lawyer has cleaned him up. That funky beard is gone and he's growing some hair on his head. He doesn't look nearly as much like a skinhead as he did.
> 
> Edited to add --
> 
> They are presenting a large amount of evidence. I'm not sure what relevance a lot of the evidence has to bail. I'm guessing that both sides are using this hearing as an opportunity to take care of various procedural issues that have nothing to do with bail. Still, I have no idea why they are taking the time to have to fire rescue worker testify about Zimmerman's injuries during a bail hearing.


Where are you watching this?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't know if a tape is on the internet yet. Somone will probably post it somewhere. It was broadcast live here. 

WATCH: George Zimmerman bail hearing


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Where are you watching this?


They had a live feed at MSNBC.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Bringing out the testimony of the firefighter and emergency medial tech. that 45% of Zimmerman's head and face was covered in blood was a good idea. Also Zimmerman's father testifying that it was his son's voice on the tape calling for help was a good idea.

If this will be released to the public maybe more people will have some of their questions and doubts answered.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'd be surprised if the taped hearing is posted. Most people including the "We Are Trayvon" group aren't looking for more facts.

I did find Trayvon's little brother in an interview with his mother Brandi Green who is Trayvon's father's fiance. It looks like her place backs up to the same commons area. The kid said he asked for the skittles. That explains Tryvon's supposed girl friend's statement.

What it doesn't explain is why Trayvon's father and potential stepmother didn't ask the 14 year old where Trayvon went and how long he was gone. The interview cleared up another point. There are no sidewalks in front of the houses. So using the sidewalk in the commons area was the shortest route for Trayvon to take back to the house.

The length of time it took Trayvon to return from the 7-Eleven can now be explained by the "girl friend's" statement he was standing in a shelter for a time while it was raining.

With that information it seems likely that Trayvon wasn't trying to make lean. The question remains why he didn't immediately head for the house when he spotted Zimmerman watching him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> I don't know if a tape is on the internet yet. Somone will probably post it somewhere. It was broadcast live here.
> 
> WATCH: George Zimmerman bail hearing


I just got a weather radar map at that link. But thanks anyway.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Where are you watching this?


Court Tv. The written findings will be given next week.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> I'd be surprised if the taped hearing is posted. Most people including the "We Are Trayvon" group aren't looking for more facts.
> 
> I did find Trayvon's little brother in an interview with his mother Brandi Green who is Trayvon's father's fiance. It looks like her place backs up to the same commons area. The kid said he asked for the skittles. That explains Tryvon's supposed girl friend's statement.
> 
> ...


I had actually posted about that in another thread quite awhile back.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Darren said:


> The question remains why he didn't immediately head for the house when he spotted Zimmerman watching him.


 Yeah that's what I do when ever someone looks at me (and I am minding my own business not breaking any laws) I immediately run indoors. Such logic?

Yes the question still remains when Zimmerman became concerned that Martin was up to no good, "why didn't Zimmerman immediately identify himself and asked Martin to identify himself?" Answer: you don't scare your prey by bringing attention to yourself when hunting.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not in the habit of yelling at people at a distance unless I know them. Yesterday I caught a trespasser and I was up close and personal before we had our conversation. Once Martin turned the corner into the commons area he was gone. Zimmerman lost sight of him. Martin could have waited where he was hiding and simply continued walking home after Zimmerman left.

Did you expect Zimmerman to yell out, "Halt! I want to talk to you."? I don't understand where you got the idea that yelling at strange people is some sort of requirement. Sure law enforcement has a right and duty to stop and question someone. All Zimmerman could do is keep the kid in sight. He could have talked to him if he hadn't hid, fled or whatever. I do that with strangers if I see someone that appears lost, uncertain or simply staying someplace unusual for a long time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe it will help him, but I still don't see the relevance to bail. At any rate, the judge didn't seem to mind all of the evidence being presented, so as long as the judge is going along with it and the court has time I have no problem with hearing irrelevant evidence.


 
They *didn't* present much evidence at the first hearing regarding *Zimmerman's injuries*.

It's relevant because the *totality* of the evidence tends to indicate how WEAK the State's case really is, and why there is no "flight risk" when it's clear they can't convict him anyway


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

At this point with the evidence that was submitted, the judge is essentially on notice of the exremely weak evidence, the fact that Zimmerman did suffer injuries and he caused no problems for the folks who monitored the GPS cuff.

I don't see a reason not to grant bail.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Yeah that's what I do when ever someone looks at me (and I am minding my own business not breaking any laws) I immediately run indoors. Such logic?
> 
> Yes the question still remains when Zimmerman became concerned that Martin was up to no good, "why didn't Zimmerman immediately identify himself and asked Martin to identify himself?" Answer: you don't scare your prey by bringing attention to yourself when hunting.


You don't call the police* FIRST* if you're planning a murder.

If Martin hadn't *TURNED AROUND and attacked* Zimmerman, nothing would have happened at all.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't call the police* FIRST* if you're planning a murder.
> 
> If Martin hadn't *TURNED AROUND and attacked* Zimmerman, nothing would have happened at all.


One could say most people don't ever call the police in the FIRST place. Clearly Zimmerman is not a normal person. How many times does he call them in the past?

Logic says if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin in the FIRST place, nothing would have happend at all.

You are making this too easy....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> At this point with the evidence that was submitted, the judge is essentially on notice of the exremely weak evidence, the fact that Zimmerman did suffer injuries and he caused no problems for the folks who monitored the GPS cuff.
> 
> I don't see a reason not to grant bail.


The strength of the prosecution's case it not really at issue with respect to setting bail. 

But I agree that the judge should grant bail. I think we'll see bail set.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> One could say most people don't ever call the police in the FIRST place. Clearly Zimmerman is not a normal person. How many times does he call them in the past?
> 
> Logic says if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin in the FIRST place, nothing would have happend at all.
> 
> You are making this too easy....


How many times has he shot anyone?
If he called the police all of those times and never even layed a finger on a person what happened this time?
Same man who called all of those times and never touched anyone. He called this time also. Sounds like he had it down pretty good.
Now Martin being high and looking for a fight might make a difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> One could say most people don't ever call the police in the FIRST place. Clearly Zimmerman is not a normal person. *How many times does he call them in the past?*
> 
> Logic says if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin in the FIRST place, nothing would have happend at all.
> 
> You are making this *too easy*....


We aren't discussing "most people", which is WHY it's important to stick to FACTS instead of just rambling

He never called the police an unusual amount for someone in a Community Watch in a high crime area.
The figures the gave (and LIED about at first) were really over a period of yeras and NOT months as they claimed

The only thing "easy" is showing you STILL don't undertand most of this, and don't want to learn the real truth


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The *strength of the prosecution's case* it not really at issue with respect to setting bail.
> 
> But I agree that the judge should grant bail. I think we'll see bail set.


If is "not relly an issue" , why didn't the STATE present ALL the evidence at the first hering?

They left out most of the DEFENSE side of the story


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If is "not relly an issue" , why didn't the STATE present ALL the evidence at the first hering?
> 
> They left out most of the DEFENSE side of the story


The prosecution has to show cause to bind the defendant over for trial. They have to present enough evidence to convince the court that a crime had been committed, and that the defendant had sufficient involvement to stand trial for that crime. Establishing cause does not require that all of the evidence be presented, just enough evidence to convince the court that they have a case.

In establishing cause, there is no real point in the defense presenting a case. The prosecution either makes their case or they don't.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FreeRanger said:


> One could say most people don't ever call the police in the FIRST place. Clearly Zimmerman is not a normal person. How many times does he call them in the past?
> 
> Logic says if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin in the FIRST place, nothing would have happend at all.
> 
> You are making this too easy....


Did logic remind you that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin? That was the basis of the media's conjecture that he made a racist statement to the dispatcher. Voice analysis revealed Zimmerman didn't mention race in his comment when Martin disappeared.

Your argument is the same that could be used if anyone ends up being a victim of battery whether they get car jacked, robbed at an ATM or held up while clerking in a convenience. It's the same argument used against rape victims because they were asking for it by being someplace or wearing something.

He wouldn't have gotten hurt if he hadn't gone to the ATM, driven his car that day or took a job at the 7-Eleven. It was his fault he was attacked. She wouldn't have been raped if she wore a burqua or stayed at home. Does any of that sound logical to you? Based on your twisted logic used to criticize Zimmerman, they'd have to if you're going to be consistent.

Other than the bullet wound, Martin had no wounds on his body except the scraped skin on his knuckles when he used Zimmerman's head for a punching bag.

Zimmerman had a right and duty to look for anyone strange in the neighborhood and report them. He was doing a job that was assigned to him by the community.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The prosecution has to show cause to bind the defendant over for trial. They have to present enough evidence to convince the court that a crime had been committed, and that the defendant had sufficient involvement to stand trial for that crime. Establishing cause does not require that all of the evidence be presented, just enough evidence to convince the court that they have a case.
> 
> In establishing cause, there is no real point in the defense presenting a case. The prosecution either makes their case or they don't.


According to Dershowitz, *YOU ARE WRONG.* That is why Dershowitz criticized the affidavit that Corey filed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> They had to have shown something in order to charge him and have a judge set bail.


Yes but because of the political pressure they could have shown the judge nothing but an empty pizza box and he would have ruled the same way. Why do you think the state avoided a grand jury? Because it knew there was no way a grand jury would have returned a true bill on such "evidence" as was shown.

I ask you to read the FL law on murder in the second degree I posted, look at the evidence provided to the judge and tell me if you think you would ruled the state had reached the minimum burden of proof for showing M2 was committed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm watching Zimmerman's bail hearing. It looks like his lawyer has cleaned him up. That funky beard is gone and he's growing some hair on his head. He doesn't look nearly as much like a skinhead as he did.
> 
> Edited to add --
> 
> They are presenting a large amount of evidence. I'm not sure what relevance a lot of the evidence has to bail. I'm guessing that both sides are using this hearing as an opportunity to take care of various procedural issues that have nothing to do with bail. Still, I have no idea why they are taking the time to have to fire rescue worker testify about Zimmerman's injuries during a bail hearing.


I understand why they are doing it I'm confused why the judge is allowing them. They are clearly doing it to get their side of the story into the public.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Yeah that's what I do when ever someone looks at me (and I am minding my own business not breaking any laws) I immediately run indoors. Such logic?


If I see someone who I feel is a threat my first course of action is to try to disengage. If that fails I let them know I recognize them as a threat. If all else fails I will engage.




FreeRanger said:


> Yes the question still remains when Zimmerman became concerned that Martin was up to no good, "why didn't Zimmerman immediately identify himself and asked Martin to identify himself?" Answer: you don't scare your prey by bringing attention to yourself when hunting.


You don't let a criminal know you have called the cops. It tends to upset them. Upset criminals tend to do nasty things to people who have called the cops. Hum. . .I wonder if that might be what happened here.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm watching Zimmerman's bail hearing. It looks like his lawyer has cleaned him up. That funky beard is gone and he's growing some hair on his head. He doesn't look nearly as much like a skinhead as he did.
> 
> Edited to add --
> 
> They are presenting a large amount of evidence. I'm not sure what relevance a lot of the evidence has to bail. I'm guessing that both sides are using this hearing as an opportunity to take care of various procedural issues that have nothing to do with bail. Still, I have no idea why they are taking the time to have to fire rescue worker testify about Zimmerman's injuries during a bail hearing.


He looked like that last time on TV too, well not so much hair. Small man in a suit, I wondered if someone bought him an oversized suit...?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They have to present enough evidence to convince the court that a crime had been committed, and that the defendant had sufficient involvement to stand trial for that crime


You're talking about "indictment" now, not a BOND hearing

Try to pay attention


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> I understand why they are doing it I'm confused why the judge is allowing them. They are clearly doing it to get their side of the story into the public.


O'Mara caught judge Lester off base. Lester clearly showed his bias earlier by saying the state had a strong case. Keep in mind the judge at that point would not have seen the evidence other than possibly the hokey affidavit that Corey filed. The affidavit itself was a travesty. A judge is supposed to be impartial. By saying that in public the judge not only showed his bias but also tainted the jury pool. I'm wondering if the judge could be disciplined.

O'Mara deliberately exposed the judge's bias. It's one of those I know he knows that I know things. It may have also provided the first and a very important reason to appeal any negative consequence for Zimmerman. 

The judge didn't have any choice except to allow O'Mara's use the bond hearing as a mini-trial. O'Mara went to court with a loaded elephant gun. The judge ended up looking down the barrel and flinched. O'Mara had him dead to rights.

Any time a lawyer brings a box of documents to court that large for just a bond hearing, it makes a statement. My guess is both the prosecutor and the judge weren't happy to see that. It was also interesting that only a small portion of the documents came out of the box to be submitted. I liked how O'Mara pulled a group of papers up a bit out of the box so they were accesible. I don't think either the judge or the prosecutor missed the point that the box was packed. 

O'Mara asking to be excused for the very slight delay from the judge a couple of times while he fished through the box was clever. 

The prosecutor didn't do well either. O'Mara is going to play him big time. If the man can't hold it together for a bond hearing, he's coming apart in the trial. 

Crump saw a lot of his effort spent trashing Zimmerman go down the tubes. It's no wonder he had that hang dog look. He literally hung his head at the beat down O'Mara put on both the judge and the prosecutor. 

The slick thing was O'Mara didn't do any dramatics and only extremely subtle theatrics. He was very low key. He gave the judge nothing. Lester had to sit there and take it. I'd have liked to have seen the look on Lester's face when O'Mara kicked his azz with his own words. I don't think the camera operator knew that was a classic moment. If they have a class in law school to teach a lawyer how to project presence in court, that has to be included.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> He looked like that last time on TV too, well not so much hair. Small man in a suit, I wondered if someone bought him an oversized suit...?


According to the doctor he saw the next day, Zimmer man was 5'8 and weighed 200 lbs. Martin was 5'11 and weighed 148....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bond is set at $1 million.

Florida judge sets bond at $1 million for George Zimmerman - U.S. News

That's actually more than I thought it would be. I was expecting $250K to $500K.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I:shrug:t was said Zimmerman was transferring money. The judge thought he might be getting ready to run...:shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It's evident from the Order that the judge believed Zimmerman was a flight risk.

******
_In his ruling, Lester wrote about the first bond hearing and noted an undisclosed second passport kept in Zimmerman's safe deposit box._

_"Notably, together with the passport, the money only had to be hidden for a short time for him to leave the country if the defendant made a quick decision to flee," the judge said. "It is entirely reasonable for this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people's money."_

_Lester wrote the defendant's plans to flee were "thwarted."_
Attorney: Zimmerman, family will struggle to secure bond - CNN.com


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Now it was "other people's money"? If it was other people's money, then they didn't deceive the court about how much money they had. And the judge is a mind reader? Seems a little out there to conclude that they _would have_ fled the country; more like they _could have_. They had most of that money at their disposal before he was arrested...if he was going to flee, why didn't he do it then? Also, it's a joke to think electronic monitoring is what kept him from fleeing. It's very simple to cut the anklet off and be long gone before the cops come looking starting from the last known location.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Bond is set at $1 million.
> 
> Florida judge sets bond at $1 million for George Zimmerman - U.S. News
> 
> That's actually more than I thought it would be. I was expecting $250K to $500K.


The judge is ticked and set it so he'd not be likely to get out. The last I read was the judge "felt" Zimmerman was a flight risk. AFAIK there's not a piece of evidence to show that but hey, judges don't need pesky things like evidence and proof because they are the ones who make the rules in their little fiefdoms. There's a local judge here who will cite you for contempt if you sit in "his" court room with your glasses pushed up on your head. He says it makes people look like bugs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The judge is ticked and set it so he'd not be likely to get out.


He'll make bail.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> According to the doctor he saw the next day, Zimmer man was 5'8 and weighed 200 lbs. Martin was 5'11 and weighed 148....


At 200 lbs Zimmerman was clearly overweight. Trayvon weighed 158 lbs according to the autopsy report. I suspect the ten pound difference at his age wasn't fat based on his pictures.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's evident from the Order that the judge believed Zimmerman was a flight risk.
> 
> ******
> _In his ruling, Lester wrote about the first bond hearing and noted an undisclosed second passport kept in Zimmerman's safe deposit box._
> ...


He didn't think the passport was significant the first time he heard about it, and said so himself

This is all theatrics and politics now, and a judge with a HUGE ego
I wonder how much of a kick back he'll get from the bail bondsman?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

ryanthomas said:


> Now it was "other people's money"? If it was other people's money, then they didn't deceive the court about how much money they had. And the judge is a mind reader? Seems a little out there to conclude that they _would have_ fled the country; more like they _could have_. They had most of that money at their disposal before he was arrested...if he was going to flee, why didn't he do it then? Also, it's a joke to think electronic monitoring is what kept him from fleeing. *It's very simple to cut the anklet off and be long gone before the cops come looking* starting from the last known location.


It doesn't work that way. Cut the bracelet or interfere with the signal and there's an immediate warning to the monitoring staff. O'Mara hit the nail on the head when he mentioned Zimmerman's experiences with the judicial system.

He cooperated in every way the police requested without a lawyer present. He trusted the system. The latest BS out of the judge's mouth shows he's technologically challenged along with being filled with an outsized sense of self importance.

"Lester wrote the defendant's plans to flee were "thwarted."

Zimmerman got lestered again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> *"Lester wrote the defendant's plans to flee were "thwarted."*
> 
> Zimmerman got lestered again.


You have to admit, that's a pretty strong allegation from a judge.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You have to admit, that's a pretty strong allegation from a judge.


Law: An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.

allegation - definition of allegation by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Taken along with the judge's publlc statement "of a srong case" before trial and before the submital of evidence, it proves the judge is biased and questions whether Zimmerman can get a fair trial. 

Did you watch the testimony which showed that Zimmerman was a model detainee? Just like when he first complied with all police requests during the investigation, he again complied with all of the requirements.

Jacking the bond up to a million dollars adds weight to the judge not being impartial. If anything it shows that like you and others the judge is operating under the Napoleanic code of justice where the defendant is considered guilty until they can prove themself innocent. 

We're taught in grade school that in this country a defendent is innocent until proven guilty. It's amazing that a judge would show his bias that way when the testimony clearly showed otherwise.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Just a way tp punish a person when they know the charge is bogus.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> It doesn't work that way. Cut the bracelet or interfere with the signal and there's an immediate warning to the monitoring staff.


Exactly what I was saying. You cut the anklet, they immediately get a warning. But nobody shows up immediately. First the monitoring center calls the supervising agent, who decides how to proceed. So local cops might show up where you were within ten minutes...more likely an hour or more. You're long gone by the time they come looking. I hang out with some shady people. I know how it works.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I had a cousin who had to wear one of those leg bracelets.
When he wanted to go somewhere he just took it off.
The cops in the area took so long to check on him that he would be back home before they got there, if they ever did.
For a while his dog wore it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I have a feeling no matter what happens, those on both sides are going to think the whole thing was rigged. If the judge sets a high bond, those who think Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong doing think it's all political. If Zimmerman is set free those who think Martin was innocent will think it was rigged. Personally, I don't think any amount of evidence or lack of evidence will change anyone here minds on what happened. I don't know what happened. I hope that Zimmerman gets justice, whether he was wrong or not. I just hope that a jury will be able to wade through all the mess and come to the right decision based on the evidence and not allow their own opinions color their decision.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I have a feeling no matter what happens, those on both sides are going to think the whole thing was rigged. If the judge sets a high bond, those who think Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong doing think it's all political. If Zimmerman is set free those who think Martin was innocent will think it was rigged. Personally, I don't think any amount of evidence or lack of evidence will change anyone here minds on what happened. I don't know what happened. I hope that Zimmerman gets justice, whether he was wrong or not. I just hope that a jury will be able to wade through all the mess and come to the right decision based on the evidence and not allow their own opinions color their decision.


In the eyes of the law Zimmerman *IS* innocent. Bail is not supposed to keep someone you think is guilty in jail. The ONLY reason for requiring bail and that is to make sure the accused shows up for trial. The only reason it is supposed to be denied is if it has been shown the accused is either a flight risk, setting it so high the accused has no chance of making it is the same thing as denying it. The only reason I can see for the judge to set such a high bail (which he knows there's no way Zimmerman can raise) is because he's ticked off. If Zimmerman was going to run why didn't he do it while he was out on the lower bail?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> Personally, I don't think any amount of evidence or lack of evidence will change anyone here minds on what happened.


You are wrong. I would throw the guy under the bus in a heartbeat if there is PROOF that he murdered the kid. Otherwise, he is presumed innocent in my eyes (and supposedly in the eyes of the court).


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

watcher said:


> If Zimmerman was going to run why didn't he do it while he was out on the lower bail?


Or before he was arrested...he was a free man with over $100K and no GPS anklet. He's too naive to run. He still thinks he has a chance of getting a fair trial and getting his life back.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Darren said:


> Law: An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.
> 
> allegation - definition of allegation by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> ...


Seen cases before where someone in Judicial System had prejudice towards a person and went all out to prove the person guilty even though they knew better.

big rockpile


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You have to admit, that's a pretty strong allegation *from a judge*.


It's a *FALSE accusation* based only on his HURT EGO because Zimmerman made him angry

The high bond is PUNISHMENT for irritating the judge and nothing more

(He posted bail this afternoon and is out of jail now)


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a *FALSE accusation* based only on his HURT EGO because Zimmerman made him angry
> 
> The high bond is PUNISHMENT for irritating the judge and nothing more
> 
> (He posted bail this afternoon and is out of jail now)


How come you know What the judge is thinking? Are you a seer?Why does everyone here think they know what people are thinking? sheesh.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> How come you know What the judge is thinking? Are you a seer?Why does everyone here think they know what people are thinking? sheesh.


In the case of the judge you don't have to know what he was thinking. He said what he was thinking.

It also helps if a person knows a little about law and actually believes a person have to be proven guilty before being punished.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> In the case of the judge you don't have to know what he was thinking. He said what he was thinking.
> 
> It also helps if a person knows a little about law and actually believes a person have to be proven guilty before being punished.


I can't help but believe that the deception about money and the hidden passport had a purpose.Other than flight to avoid prosecution, I'm at a loss for an alternate theory.

It's not only wrongdoing that Zimmerman has to be concerned about, but also the appearance of wrongdoing. Zimmerman has a credibility problem, and you can bet his lawyer is talking to him about that. Zimmerman's entire defense is his word that he believed he was in danger, but without credibility his word is worth nothing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I can't help but believe that the deception about money and the hidden passport had a purpose.Other than flight to avoid prosecution, I'm at a loss for an alternate theory.
> 
> It's not only wrongdoing that Zimmerman has to be concerned about, but also the appearance of wrongdoing. Zimmerman has a credibility problem, and you can bet his lawyer is talking to him about that. Zimmerman's entire defense is his word that he believed he was in danger, but without credibility his word is worth nothing.


It shouldn't be that way. The appearance of something is not proof of anything. There has never been any evidence showing Zimmerman committed a crime and no evidence that shows he was a flight risk. There has been quite a bit of evidence showing the opposite.

I also noticed the judge said Zimmerman will have to stay in the county. Sounds like the judge is trying to make it as easy as possible for someone to make sure Zimmerman is not around for a trial.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> It shouldn't be that way. The appearance of something is not proof of anything. There has never been any evidence showing Zimmerman committed a crime and no evidence that shows he was a flight risk. There has been quite a bit of evidence showing the opposite.


That's not the point. Just as a religious minister has to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing to maintain credibility, Zimmerman has to do the same. Proof is not the issue. People are either going to find his word to be credible, or they won't. There will be no trial for his credibility.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's not the point. Just as a religious minister has to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing to maintain credibility, Zimmerman has to do the same. Proof is not the issue. People are either going to find his word to be credible, or they won't. There will be no trial for his credibility.


There should not be a single person on the jury that makes their decision on the credibility of Zimmerman.
Proof or a lack of it that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the one who did it should be the only reason a person should be on the jury.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> There should not be a single person on the jury that makes their decision on the credibility of Zimmerman.


Zimmerman's defense depends entirely upon his claim of self defense. If the jury believes he thought he was in danger then he will be acquitted. If they don't believe it then he will be convicted. Either way, his credibility is critical, and every person on the jury will be considering how believable he might be.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's defense depends entirely upon his claim of self defense. If the jury believes he thought he was in danger then he will be acquitted. If they don't believe it then he will be convicted. Either way, his credibility is critical, and every person on the jury will be considering how believable he might be.


Wrong.
Zimmerman's lawyer does not really have to say a word. The prosecutor will have to show proof that a crime was committed. I don't think they can do that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Wrong.
> Zimmerman's lawyer does not really have to say a word. The prosecutor will have to show proof that a crime was committed. I don't think they can do that.


Zimmerman's lawyer will say plenty, and he'll be fighting an uphill battle. Zimmerman is in a lot more trouble that you apparently realize.

The problem is that Martin had rights too, although he can't speak for himself now. The jury will have sympathy for Martin, and they will be inclined to ask questions in their minds on Martin's behalf.

You think this issue is about gun rights, but it's really about the rights of people to choose not to carry a gun. They also have a right to life, and being unarmed does not forfeit that right. The jury is not going to allow Martin's interests to be silenced by Zimmerman's gun.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's defense depends entirely upon his claim of self defense. If the jury believes he thought he was in danger then he will be acquitted. If they don't believe it then he will be convicted. Either way, his credibility is critical, and every person on the jury will be considering how believable he might be.


That might be true if he were charged with manslaughter. He is charged with murder. His belief that he was in danger is not a valid defense for murder. By charging him with murder, the prosecution removed the burden from Zimmerman. That is legally speaking, of course. We all know the jury will probably decide based on their feelings rather than the law, so you're probably right about the credibility factor.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You think this issue is about gun rights, but it's really about the rights of people to choose not to carry a gun. They also have a right to life, and being unarmed does not forfeit that right. The jury is not going to allow Martin's interests to be silenced by Zimmerman's gun.


You are the one trying to make gun rights an issue.
Martin attacked Zimmerman. That is all this is about. Nothing else no matter how hard you try to make it.
The prosecutor will have to prove that didn't happen. He can't. End of story.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's enough lose ends that O'Mara would have to be like " Even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in awhile" to not understand how many facts derail the prosecution. Masaad Ayoob alone could probably expose the investgation as inept. We still haven't seen any test report on the Kel-Tec. The police probably never tested it. If so, that's a major screw up.

If Zimmerman was the cold-blooded murderous stalker the media has tried to label him, there's no way Martin would have been shot once and only once. O'Mara's trump card is the cross examination. He already got a key admission from the lead investigator. And when he outfoxed that idiot judge Lester, he definitely proved he's up to the task. I could not believe how effectively he castrated the judge in the bond hearing. I still wish the camera had caught the judge in that instant. At least the judge maintained enough composure to not blubber.

Even when Mo-Lester jacked the bail up to one million, Zimmerman still walked. That had to upset the judge.

O'Mara doesn't have any ego involved in this. The judge does. BDLR, the prosecutor to his discredit, comes across as Barney Fife reincarnated as a lawyer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> How come you know What the judge is thinking? Are you a seer?Why does everyone here think they know what people are thinking? sheesh.


Because I've known judges, and seen their attitudes and this one has a reputation.

He's *shown* his bias through his comments.

He's obviously playing to the audience, since his remark isn't based in FACT at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You think this issue is about gun rights, but it's really *about the rights of people to choose not to carry a gun. *
> 
> They also have a right to life, and being unarmed does not forfeit that right. The jury is not going to allow Martin's interests to be silenced by Zimmerman's gun.


LOL 
What a CROCK.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > You think this issue is about gun rights, but it's really *about the rights of people to choose not to carry a gun. *
> ...


The alternative is to have all the people who aren't armed start to carry guns to protect themselves from trigger-happy gun owners. The result would be numerous shootouts, where the winner gets off by claiming that his life was in danger. That's not the direction any of us want to go.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The alternative is to have all the people who aren't armed start to carry guns to protect themselves from *trigger-happy gun owners.* The result would be numerous shootouts, where the winner gets off by claiming that his life was in danger. That's not the direction any of us want to go.


More fertilizer on the pile

When you have to *resort to fantasy*, why even waste the effort?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Guess Nevada saw that on one of those old movies he watches.
Someone should let him know that is only a movie, not real life.
When people begin to age they have problems telling reality from movies or fantasys.

How old are you Nevada?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The alternative is to have all the people who aren't armed start to carry guns to *protect themselves from trigger-happy gun owners.* The result would be numerous shootouts, where the winner gets off by claiming that his life was in danger. That's not the direction any of us want to go.


Interesting! That's the most unfounded statement made by the anti-gun crowd when they've tried to defeat concealed carry. Obviously many folks including you are not interested in facts. It should be obvious to anyone with an open mind that feelings aren't facts. The dreaded increase in shootouts when concealed carry is passed by a state has never occurred.

Each time another state moves toward concealed carry the same unproven and discredited arguments hit the editorial section of the newspapers. What they seem to miss is the fact the shootouts are increasing in states without concealed carry. Chicago is a prime example.

If you want something that bears up under scrutiny go with, "An armed society is a polite society." Apparently Martin's parents never taught their angelic son that attacking and beating someone was not polite. Some things you can learn by experience. Unfortunately some don't have the wisdom to learn from others' experiences. Too bad the media didn't learn either. 

I still wonder if Martin had a revelation in his last seconds. Did it ocurr to him he made the biggest and the final mistake of his young life before his body shut down? I doubt he felt anything when he was shot other than instantly knowing something was wrong. His last words may have shown he did have some sort of revelation.

I'm not sure when WV allowed concealed carry. It may have been codified from the beginning. For a state where people are literally armed to the teeth and most couldn't immediately tell you how many firearms they own because of the sheer number, there's a surprising lack of shootouts.

I'm looking forward to the national reciprocity law. There's going to be a lot of young adults that learn politeness the hard way when they attack someone because their state doesn't allow concealed carry and they don't realize their intended seemingly helpless victim, who is from another state, is packing.

My better half who barely breaks 5' and is pushing 80 would be one of those seemingly helpless victims. Her attackers won't have the heads up of seeing the picture of her handling a 12 gauge with absolutely no trouble at all. That apparently sweet old lady has no qualms trayvoning a thug.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Guess Nevada saw that on one of those old movies he watches.
> Someone should let him know that is only a movie, not real life.
> When people begin to age they have problems telling reality from movies or fantasys.


The similarities between this case and the Rodriguez case in Texas are striking. Rodriguez believed his life was in danger, and he believed he was acting in self defense. In fact he was so convinced that he was acting in self defense that he video taped the incident and freely offered it as evidence. No sane person who as seen the video believes it was self defense, so Rodriguez was convicted.

The big difference between the Rodriguez case and the Zimmerman case is lack of evidence. Zimmerman is making exactly the same claims, but we only have his word.



pancho said:


> How old are you Nevada?


You don't know? We've had a lot of retirement discussions around here. I thought everyone knew I was retirement aged.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The similarities between this case and the Rodriguez case in Texas are striking. Rodriguez believed his life was in danger, and he believed he was acting in self defense. In fact he was so convinced that he was acting in self defense that he video taped the incident and freely offered it as evidence. No sane person who as seen the video believes it was self defense, so Rodriguez was convicted.
> 
> The big difference between the Rodriguez case and the Zimmerman case is lack of evidence. Zimmerman is making exactly the same claims, but we only have his word.
> 
> ...


Yes, I already knew.
We are about the same age.

The lack of evidence is the reason Zimmerman will be found not guilty.
All of the evidence agrees with everything Zimmerman has said all along.
We have his words.
We have evidence that agrees with what he says.
We even have Zimmerman on the phone calling for help before anything happened and Zimmerman calling for help while Martin is beating him.

It is a simple case. The cops had it right in the first place.
If the colored people would not have marched it would be over and forgotten about by now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The lack of evidence is the reason Zimmerman will be found not guilty.
> All of the evidence agrees with everything Zimmerman has said all along.
> We have his words.


I don't think it will be that easy. I suspect we'll see Zimmerman on the stand again in the trial.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Another $25,000 is donated to Zimmerman within 24 hours.

George Zimmerman, the Constitution, and the shifting politics of self-defense - CSMonitor.com


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think it will be that easy. I suspect we'll see Zimmerman on the stand again in the trial.


If Zimmerman is guilty like you think he won't take the stand. Why should he?
Even if he is not guilty like I think he doesn't have to take the stand.
He should set back and let the prosecutor make a fool of himself. Should be easy to do.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> Another $25,000 is donated to Zimmerman within 24 hours.
> 
> George Zimmerman, the Constitution, and the shifting politics of self-defense - CSMonitor.com


Not bad, over $1,000 an hour. But not nearly as good as the CEO that made over $2 million an hour.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> If Zimmerman is guilty like you think he won't take the stand. Why should he?
> Even if he is not guilty like I think he doesn't have to take the stand.
> He should set back and let the prosecutor make a fool of himself. Should be easy to do.


He's already taken the stand and exposed himself to cross-examination, and that was just to help set reasonable bail. What does he have to lose by taking the stand again? After all his entire defense centers around his belief that he was in danger. If the jury doesn't hear that from him how will they know if his claim is sincere?

By the way, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty. I just want Martin's interests to be considered.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He's already taken the stand and exposed himself to cross-examination, and that was just to help set reasonable bail. What does he have to lose by taking the stand again? After all his entire defense centers around his belief that he was in danger. If the jury doesn't hear that from him how will they know if his claim is sincere?
> 
> By the way, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty. I just want Martin's interests to be considered.


If you really think Zimmerman is not guilty why do we need the expence and problems a trial will bring?
I can't see any benefit of having a trial. Anyone who has been following the incident should know by now he isn't guilty and should know why he was even charged.

What way would it benefit Martin to falsely charge a man with a crime?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> If you really think Zimmerman is not guilty why do we need the expence and problems a trial will bring?


I didn't say I thought he was not guilty, I just said I haven't made up my mind that he's guilty.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I didn't say I thought he was not guilty, I just said I haven't made up my mind that he's guilty.


You don't have that many choices.
You said you didn't think Zimmerman wasa guilty.
What other choices do you have?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> You don't have that many choices.
> You said you didn't think Zimmerman wasa guilty.
> What other choices do you have?


I'll wait for the evidence to be presented at trial.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'll wait for the evidence to be presented at trial.


We don't have any other choice.
That is if Zimmerman lives long enough to go to trial.
The media, certain groups of people, and the law are trying their best to make sure he doesn't get that chance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> We don't have any other choice.
> That is if Zimmerman lives long enough to go to trial.
> The media, certain groups of people, and the law are trying their best to make sure he doesn't get that chance.


I don't think anyone is going to go after Zimmerman.

What I expect is for Zimmerman to make additional poor judgment choices now that he's out of jail. That's just what he does.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think anyone is going to go after Zimmerman.
> 
> What I expect is for Zimmerman to make additional poor judgment choices now that he's out of jail. That's just what he does.


I would think Martin was the one who continually made poor judgement choices. The last one was especially a bad one. Anyone should know you never attack a person carrying a gun. I would say that was a very poor judgement choice.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I can't help but believe that the deception about money and the hidden passport had a purpose.Other than flight to avoid prosecution, I'm at a loss for an alternate theory.


Let's see, he didn't want the court to set the bail so high that most of the money collected would have to go to a bail bondsman and he did forget where the second passport was. After all wasn't years ago when he reported it lost and applied for a new one?

The facts (not beliefs, not feelings) are that he had the money and passport for quite a while. Either he wasn't going to run or he was running very slowly.




Nevada said:


> It's not only wrongdoing that Zimmerman has to be concerned about, but also the appearance of wrongdoing. Zimmerman has a credibility problem, and you can bet his lawyer is talking to him about that. Zimmerman's entire defense is his word that he believed he was in danger, but without credibility his word is worth nothing.


Even if you some doubt in his words the evidence supports him. That along should be enough to give you reasonable doubt. Plus, again with the publicly released evidence, that the state can reach its burden of proof for M2 as required by Florida law.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's defense depends entirely upon his claim of self defense. If the jury believes he thought he was in danger then he will be acquitted. If they don't believe it then he will be convicted. Either way, his credibility is critical, and every person on the jury will be considering how believable he might be.


You keep harping on Zimmerman's defense. The only defense he is going to need is to show that the state has not reached its burden of proof. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman feared for his life, if the state can't prove that he killed Martin " from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ AND the shooting "itself indicates an indifference to human life" AND all the other things that are required by the law then Zimmerman is not guilty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's lawyer will say plenty, and he'll be fighting an uphill battle. Zimmerman is in a lot more trouble that you apparently realize.
> 
> The problem is that Martin had rights too, although he can't speak for himself now. The jury will have sympathy for Martin, and they will be inclined to ask questions in their minds on Martin's behalf.
> 
> You think this issue is about gun rights, but it's really about the rights of people to choose not to carry a gun. They also have a right to life, and being unarmed does not forfeit that right. The jury is not going to allow Martin's interests to be silenced by Zimmerman's gun.


But the case will be decided on the law. He might get convicted but the conviction will be tossed on appeal. Jury nullification only works against the state not against the defendant.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The similarities between this case and the Rodriguez case in Texas are striking. Rodriguez believed his life was in danger, and he believed he was acting in self defense. In fact he was so convinced that he was acting in self defense that he video taped the incident and freely offered it as evidence. No sane person who as seen the video believes it was self defense, so Rodriguez was convicted.


I'm not sure but did Rodriguez have a broken nose and a gash on his head? Were there witnesses who saw Rodriguez on the ground with another man on top of him and someone screaming for help? Was there evidence showing that the 'kill shot' from Rodriguez was fired at contact range? Did Rodriguez have his weapon concealed until he was attacked?

Seems to me there are a just a few differences in the cases.




Nevada said:


> The big difference between the Rodriguez case and the Zimmerman case is lack of evidence. Zimmerman is making exactly the same claims, but we only have his word.


Yeah, there's NOTHING showing Zimmerman was attacked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The similarities between this case and the Rodriguez case in Texas are striking. Rodriguez believed his life was in danger, and he believed he was acting in self defense. In fact he was so convinced that he was acting in self defense that he video taped the incident and freely offered it as evidence. No sane person who as seen the video believes it was self defense, so Rodriguez was convicted.


There are NO "similarities" in these cases.

One was an act of *self defense*, and the other was premeditated murder.

Why do you keep repeating yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The big difference between the Rodriguez case and the Zimmerman case is lack of evidence


There's no "lack of evidence" that Zimmerman was beaten, and had "serious bodily injuries", which ARE grounds for the use of "dadly force"

You PRETEND there is a "lack" because you want to IGNORE everything REAL about the case to promote *your agenda*



> *I didn't say I thought he was not guilty*




You've said he's guilty from the beginning
Who are you trying to kid?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "lack of evidence" that Zimmerman was beaten, and had "serious bodily injuries", which ARE grounds for the use of "dadly force"


Depends on how you look at the evidence. It's possible that Zimmerman got himself into a fistfight but lost. The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Depends on how you look at the evidence. It's possible that Zimmerman got himself into a fistfight but lost. The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


What makes you think they don't have that right.
Do you think a person should just lay there and die?
You need to wake up and take a good long look at real life.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


Yes he does under various circumstances.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Depends on how you look at the evidence. It's possible that Zimmerman got himself into a fistfight but lost. The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


Whether you accept it or not the law has always allowed a justified killing. Neither you nor Martin apparently heard the phrase, "You don't kick a man when he's down." While today it may refer to economic circumstances like the judge lestering Zimmerman, it originally applied when someone had knocked a man down.

A modern example is during a boxing match when the referee moves to keep the fighter still standing from contact with the fallen fighter. 

In modern MMA the rules literally allow beating a man into submission. The law does not. Given the rage shown by Martin and his continued MMA ground and pound, Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot him.

You would have really liked the gladiator fights in Rome where the victor could kill his opponent while he was defenseless. I doubt Martin would have attacked Zimmerman if he had known Zimmerman had a gun with a bullet with his name on it. Of course only fate knew that.

Martin's lack of judgement is proven by the increasing severity of school discipline, his poor choice of extracurricular activities and the final violent act that resulted in his death.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Depends on how you look at the evidence. It's possible that Zimmerman got himself into a fistfight but lost. The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


He does if the fight has moved from a fight to hand to hand combat. If you start a fight with me do I then have the right to kill you as long as I just use my hands?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The lead investigator, Serino, who interrogated Zimmerman has a problem. Can anyone confirm his reassignment or has he resigned? Personally I think he should be a defendent in the next trial coming out of the incident. Crump's lies and Serino's actions make up the foundation of the bogus stuff the media is still spreading.

PJ Media Â» George Zimmerman Lynching Further Unravels


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Everything I've seen says he was reassigned to graveyard shift patrol duty starting this past Saturday, supposedly by his own request. From listening to the interview recordings, he didn't seem like he knew what he was doing as an investigator. I think he got played by Trayvon's family. He also sounded drunk in one of the interviews.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Depends on how you look at the evidence. It's possible that Zimmerman got himself into a *fistfight* but lost. The loser of a fistfight doesn't get to shoot the winner.


There's no evidence of any "fistfight".

That's YOUR *fantasy.*

*ALL* the evidence shows is Zimmerman was *attacked*

What EVIDENCE do you have to* show* otherwise?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Zimmerman used lethal force and is alive and facing a jury of 12 . Martin is dead and was carried by 6. The news media is sensationalizing the situation every chance they can. Prosecution is building their case and disclosing findings to the defense counsel. The defense counsel is building their defense and petitioning for change of venue. Eventually a judge and jury will decide if the prosecution's case withstands or the defense presents adequate reasonable doubt.

I have no personal involvement in this court battle nor am I resident of Florida and unlikely to be called to sit on a jury therefore I have no opinion on the matter beyond keeping my firearms in good working order and continuing my usual visits to the practice range for lethal force justification drills along with my usual target practice sessions.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Shrek, Well said


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

Why don't y'all quit trying the man. If you get selected for the jury, listen to the lawyers lay out the case and then make up your mind. This man will never get a fair trial , he has been found guilty by the media and general public.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

All this talk about how badly Zimmerman was injured, and yet he refused to see a doctor until he needed to go back to work...Martin was taller but Zimmerman was heavier...Zimmerman was following Martin, martin supposedly tried to run from him. Zimmerman confronted martin without telling him who or what he was...I believe THIS is why Martin had to defend himself and ended up dead...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> All this talk about how badly Zimmerman was injured, and yet he refused to see a doctor until he needed to go back to work...Martin was taller but Zimmerman was heavier...Zimmerman was following Martin, martin supposedly tried to run from him. Zimmerman confronted martin without telling him who or what he was...I believe THIS is why Martin had to defend himself and ended up dead...


Its not how badly he was injured. The law does not require you to wait until you have been badly injured before you defend yourself.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> All this talk about how badly Zimmerman was injured, and yet he refused to see a doctor until he needed to go back to work...Martin was taller but Zimmerman was heavier...Zimmerman was following Martin, martin supposedly tried to run from him. Zimmerman confronted martin without telling him who or what he was...I believe THIS is why Martin had to defend himself and ended up dead...


If that was anywhere even close to the truth don't you think Martin could have outrun Zimmerman? Think about it for a minute.
An older heavier man and a young slimmer man can't out run him.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> All this talk about how badly Zimmerman was injured, and yet he refused to see a doctor until he needed to go back to work...Martin was taller but Zimmerman was heavier...Zimmerman was following Martin, martin supposedly tried to run from him. Zimmerman confronted martin without telling him who or what he was...I believe THIS is why Martin had to defend himself and ended up dead...


There's some inconvenient facts that derail your hypothesis. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. DeeCee in her statement to the police said that Martin was not going to run. Between Martin not running but running and Zimmerman losing him, what happened? If the kid was in danger why didn't he simply go home where his father's fiance's son was waiting for his Skittles?

Where was Martin when Zimmerman turned the corner and could not see him? 

Why didn't either Martin or the woman he was talking to call 911? Martin did not have a girlfriend BTW. Why didn't the woman try to get in touch with Martin's parents if he or she felt he was in danger and she could not call him back? The actions of all of the people known by Martin do not jive.

Zimmerman's statement is corroborated by witnesses for the portion of the fight they observed and the 911 tapes.

I'm not sure where the issue of Zimmerman identifying himself originated. I haven't seen it mentioned in the neighborhood watch information. Nor have I seen it mentioned as necessary for anyone on their home ground. According to Zimmerman he reached for his phone when confronted by Martin. 

*HIS FIRST REACTION WAS TO CALL THE POLICE AGAIN.* At that point Zimmerman would have identified himself to the dispatcher. All Martin had to do was identify himself as a visiter to the neighborhood. Instead Martin sucker punched Zimmerman. 

As you pointed out, Zimmerman was the heavier man. How do you think he ended up on the ground with Martin on top? I don't think Martin could have gotten him on the ground without surprising him by sucker punching him.

While you're at it how do you explain Zimmerman's injuries? Regardless of the severity, Martin played a part. By law you aren't allowed to batter people. It doesn't matter if you know them, or not or even if you're married to them. If your theory holds up a lot of battered women should just shut up and accept a beating if they don't want to go to the hospital. Battery is battery. It is against the law. It doesn't matter how severe the injuries are. 

There is nothing that condones Martin's continued beating of Zimmerman. If that's the case and I'm your husband, I'm allowed to use your head as a punching bag after I've knocked you down. As long as I don't injure you to the point you have to go to a hospital, or the morgue, I have a get out of jail free card. Sorry, no harm, no foul doesn't apply under the law.

FWIW, I've known people to refuse treatment when they had lethal injuries. They did not know they were injured. One guy got out of the wreck refused treament, started walking and then dropped dead when he turned his head. His neck had been broken.

I've seen people that when the car is cut away from them, bolted out of the vehicle when a firefighter was trying to support their neck and head. 

The human body is an amazing thing. Just because you think you feel Ok, doesn't mean you're OK. Zimmerman at least was seen and treated by a paramedic. The paramedic would have examined him for head injuries. Obviously there were none of the usual signs of that present.

That is still not an excuse for Martin to beat him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> All this talk about how badly Zimmerman was injured, and yet *he refused to see a doctor until he needed to go back to work...*Martin was taller but Zimmerman was heavier...Zimmerman was following Martin, martin supposedly tried to run from him. Zimmerman confronted martin without telling him who or what he was...I believe THIS is why Martin had to defend himself and ended up dead...


I don't know where you get your information, but that is* NOT TRUE*.

If you think it is, *provide your source*

There is also NO EVIDENCE Martin had any reason to *PHYSICALLY* "defend himself".

He had* already* gotten away from Zimmerman.
All he had to do was keep going


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I've said all along that I didn't think Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated, since I had heard nothing to support that contention, but witness #9 made a statement that is a real game-changer. Evidently witness #9 is a relative and knows Zimmerman on a personal level.

_"Growing up, (Zimmerman) and his family always made statements that they didn&#8217;t like black people if they don&#8217;t act like white people," the witness, who would be about 27 now, told investigators in the taped conversation. "They like black people if they act white. Other than that, they talked a lot of bad things about black people."_
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2... to Content=Earned to Mixed=1&__utmk=86144664


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I've said all along that I didn't think Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated, since I had heard nothing to support that contention, but witness #9 made a statement that is a real game-changer. Evidently witness #9 is a relative and knows Zimmerman on a personal level.
> 
> _"Growing up, (Zimmerman) and his family always made statements that they didnât like black people if they donât act like white people," the witness, who would be about 27 now, told investigators in the taped conversation. "They like black people if they act white. Other than that, they talked a lot of bad things about black people."_
> Witness: Zimmerman did not like black people - U.S. News


She also stated that Zimmerman had basically attacked her when he was 8 and she was 6.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> but witness #9 made a statement that is a real game-changer.


How is it you SEE this thread, but conspicuously AVOIDED the one abouit the FBI report finding NO racial bias?

Witness #9 provided NO EVIDENCE about the actual case, and NO EVIDENCE to prove her *allegations*.

How convenient she waited 10 YEARS to mention it at all, while claiming it "took place *in front of everyone*"

It's just more *demonization* of Zimmerman since the REAL case is so obviously a trumped up charge


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Witness #9 provided NO EVIDENCE about the actual case, and NO EVIDENCE to prove her *allegations*.


Eyewitness testimony of his racism is pretty strong evidence.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Eyewitness testimony of his racism is pretty strong evidence.


Eye witnesses, family and friends say he's not racist
Trayvon on the other hand?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Eye witnesses, family and friends say he's not racist
> Trayvon on the other hand?


Well, this family member says HE IS racist.

You can expect most family members to come out in support of the accused. That's just human nature. It would not be out of character for family members to defend the accused regardless of truth. But a family member coming out against the accused is evidence that will get a lot of consideration.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Eyewitness testimony of his racism is pretty strong evidence.


Too bad it won't be allowed as evidense since it's just heresay! Anyone can say anything they want, doesn't mean it's true! I'd like to know how much she was paid! Let's see how the trial plays out!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Well, this family member says HE IS racist.
> 
> You can expect most family members to come out in support of the accused. That's just human nature. It would not be out of character for family members to defend the accused regardless of truth. But a family member coming out against the accused is evidence that will get a lot of consideration.


Good thing you aren't on the jury, you already have your mind made up and have had since the beginning
Since the real racists, Jackson, Sharpton and Obama got involved, you've been following their lead.
This is a race issue, but it wasn't before the bigots from he left showed up to stir the pot against legal gun owners.
If anybody is racist, it's people like you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Too bad it won't be allowed as evidense since it's just heresay! Anyone can say anything they want, doesn't mean it's true! I'd like to know how much she was paid! Let's see how the trial plays out!


No, this is not hearsay evidence. If she testifies that she heard Zimmerman make racist statements, that's first-hand evidence.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've said all along that I didn't think Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated, since I had heard nothing to support that contention, but witness #9 made a statement that is a real game-changer. Evidently witness #9 is a relative and knows Zimmerman on a personal level.
> 
> _"Growing up, (Zimmerman) and his family always made statements that they didnât like black people if they donât act like white people," the witness, who would be about 27 now, told investigators in the taped conversation. "They like black people if they act white. Other than that, they talked a lot of bad things about black people."_
> Witness: Zimmerman did not like black people - U.S. News


You have ONE person saying he is and and FBI investigation saying he isn't. 

"A report released by the FBI has reignited the debate over whether George Zimmerman was racially motivated the night he killed Trayvon Martin. 

Detective Chris Serino described Zimmerman as overzealous and as having a "little hero complex" but not as a racist, according to the FBI report


Zimmerman Not a Racist, FBI Report Says | Fox News Latino

Which do you think carries more weight?

Seeing as how your "Witness 9" was known she was surely included in the FBI investigation therefore her statement must have been found, well let's just say lacking in creditability.

Try all you want but the evidence shows that Zimmerman was not a racist. Which puts a big dent in the state's case.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> No, this is not hearsay evidence. If she testifies that she heard Zimmerman make racist statements, that's first-hand evidence.


What about if someone heard Martin make racist statements, would that be enough "evidence" for you to change your mind?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> What about if someone heard Martin make racist statements, would that be enough "evidence" for you to change your mind?


Change my mind about what? Martin isn't on trial.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada, are you aware that the cousin's statement about Zimmerman's racism was only based on the fact his family didn't vote for Obama? Are you aware Zimmerman worked for her father after her accusation? Are you also aware that Ms. Johnson has had some run-ins with the police?

Are you aware Ms. Johnson contacted the police soon after the incident because she was no longer afraid of Zimmerman. That's a bit odd because Zimmerman wasn't in jail and he had bought another firearm for protection.

If the FBI chose to discount her, why are you so certain, you have better information than the FBI? Folks on the internet have already found a number of details about Ms. Johnson. The one I'm waiting for is the info that proves she offered the story to People magazine.

What's strange is the amount of time that's passed for her story to come out. Once again we see proof that Lester has abandoned any appearance of impartiallity and is actively along with Corey trying to ruin any chance of Zimmerman getting a fair trial.

I'm wondering If Ms. Johnson is an opportunist like Trayvon's parents. Why would she try to sell her story? That doesn't sound like someone out for justice. Sounds more like "Show me the money" especially when you consider Zimmerman worked for her father after the supposed confrontation in front of her family at the restaurant.

You and the other members of the lynch mob are grasping at imaginary straws.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> She also stated that Zimmerman had basically attacked her when he was 8 and she was 6.


We used to call that playing. Don't know when they started calling it attacking.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

pancho said:


> We used to call that playing. Don't know when they started calling it attacking.


It used to be called playing doctor. Maybe at some point it was inappropriate. It's hard to tell these days since even a wrong look can get you in trouble. Of course young women who make false claims aren't doing others any good when their lies are discovered. The Peoples magazine part tore it for me. That and not voting for Obama. 

It's a hoot that some folks here are fixated on thinking Zimmerman had poor judgement when everyone ganging up on him are blatantly showing poor judgement.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I have been hearing people were racist if they didn't vote for Obama.
Don't know how that will be looked on in court as proof of racism.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Are you racist if you're prejudiced against Hispanics? How about a half Hispanic like Zimmerman?

For all the malarky about judgement, the claim that not voting for Obama makes you racist is crazy. By extension that means being Black automatically qualifies you for political office. WTH!

Sorry, that's bull crap. White, Black or indifferent, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

pancho said:


> I will say it again a little slower.
> He told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.
> Zimmerman didn't have to read his mind. He could hear him.


At least that's what Zimmerman said. Too bad no one else heard him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> It used to be called playing doctor. Maybe at some point it was inappropriate. It's hard to tell these days since even a wrong look can get you in trouble. Of course young women who make false claims aren't doing others any good when their lies are discovered. The Peoples magazine part tore it for me. That and not voting for Obama.
> 
> It's a hoot that some folks here are fixated on thinking Zimmerman had poor judgement when everyone ganging up on him are blatantly showing poor judgement.


I don't really want to go there. If it was not consensual then it was wrong, but still not relevant to this case. I hope the judge strikes this testimony as irrelevant. Evidence of racism against blacks would certainly be relevant to this case, but I don't like introducing the molestation allegations.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, this is not hearsay evidence. If she testifies that she heard Zimmerman make racist statements, that's first-hand evidence.


I watched some really good lawyers discussing this. They all said it's a non-issue and won't be used as evidence in court because there is no proof, just heresay. but, we'll see! He will still go free! You can play arm chair lawyer all you want, it still won't make your dreams come true!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I watched some really good lawyers discussing this. They all said it's a non-issue and won't be used as evidence in court because there is no proof, just heresay.


What was their reasoning for saying it was hearsay? It makes no sense to me.

Hearsay evidence is second-hand information. In other words, it's information obtained from someone else who actually witnessed the event. It would certainly be hearsay evidence if witness #9 said, "My mother told me that George made racist remarks." But in this case witness #9 claims to have heard the racist remarks herself, so I don't see how it can be considered hearsay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What was their reasoning for saying it was hearsay? It makes no sense to me.
> 
> Hearsay evidence is second-hand information. In other words, it's information obtained from someone else who actually witnessed the event. It would certainly be hearsay evidence if witness #9 said, "My mother told me that George made racist remarks." But in this case witness #9 claims to have heard the racist remarks herself, so I don't see how it can be considered hearsay.


She can't prove she heard anything! She could have very well made it up! Maybe for a fee! I'll take their word over yours any day! Watch, her "evidence" won't be allowed.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> At least that's what Zimmerman said. Too bad no one else heard him.


He wasn't talking to or trying to kill anyone else.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What was their reasoning for saying it was hearsay? It makes no sense to me.
> 
> Hearsay evidence is second-hand information. In other words, it's information obtained from someone else who actually witnessed the event. It would certainly be hearsay evidence if witness #9 said, "My mother told me that George made racist remarks." But in this case witness #9 claims to have heard the racist remarks herself, so I don't see how it can be considered hearsay.


Nevada, why don't you provide a link to a transcript or statement by Ms. Johnson. So far the media is still spreading information that was proven false monhs ago. I'd like to read something other than the family voted for Obama, therefore they're prejudiced.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> She can't prove she heard anything! She could have very well made it up! Maybe for a fee! I'll take their word over yours any day! Watch, her "evidence" won't be allowed.


If you aren't going to believe testimony then Zimmerman can't be believed either. 

I believe that the testimony of witness #9 will be allowed (at least the racist claims, but maybe mot the molestation allegations) and that the jury will give it a lot of consideration.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada, why don't you provide a link to a transcript or statement by Ms. Johnson.


I provided the transcript of her statement in post 448, along with an authoritative reference link, but here it is again.

_âGrowing up, (Zimmerman) and his family always made statements that they didnât like black people if they donât act like white people,â the witness, who would be about 27 now, told investigators in the taped conversation. âThey like black people if they act white. Other than that, they talked a lot of bad things about black people.â_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Eyewitness testimony of his racism is pretty strong evidence.


Nope it's just TALK with no way to PROVE it.

"She said HE said" is NOT evidence.

It's just another allegation



> If you aren't going to believe testimony then Zimmerman can't be believed either.


There is FORENSIC evidence and witnesses that BACK *everything relevant* Zimmerman said.
Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.

The STATE bears that burden, which is why they want to DISTRACT attention by playing up anything BUT the *real evidence*


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> I believe that the testimony of witness #9 will be allowed (at least the racist claims, but maybe mot the molestation allegations) and that the jury will give it a lot of consideration.


I doubt the prosecution will even call her to testify, but they've been quite irrational so far, so we'll see.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope it's just TALK with no way to PROVE it.
> 
> "She said HE said" is NOT evidence.
> 
> It's just another allegation


Yet we're supposed to take Zimmerman at his word that the shooting was self defense.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Change my mind about what? Martin isn't on trial.


No, he's not
What if Martin had been heard stating he was going to go bash some cracker's head?
Would that matter to you and the other bigots?
I know it's a 'what if', but so is much of your campaign of hate against Zimmerman
If a witness comes forth and says martin was out to get a "white hispanic" would you still be holding the rope for Zimmerman?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Yet we're supposed to take Zimmerman at his word that the shooting was self defense.


Take a look at the evidence that you ignore, not to mention eye witness and police testimony
You want to hang him so bad you can't stand it, and don't forget, Martin is not really Obama's son


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If you aren't going to believe testimony then Zimmerman can't be believed either.
> 
> I believe that the testimony of witness #9 will be allowed (at least the racist claims, but maybe mot the molestation allegations) and that the jury will give it a lot of consideration.


And the defense will call the FBI agent which investigated the charge and came to the conclusion that Zimmerman is not racist. Do you REALLY think the state is going to put ONE person on the stand when they can be rebutted with an FBI investigation?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> If you aren't going to believe testimony then Zimmerman can't be believed either.
> 
> I believe that the testimony of witness #9 will be allowed (at least the racist claims, but maybe mot the molestation allegations) and that the jury will give it a lot of consideration.


Why do you believe #9 but none of the others?
Bigotry perhaps?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I provided the transcript of her statement in post 448, along with an authoritative reference link, but here it is again.
> 
> _âGrowing up, (Zimmerman) and his family always made statements that they didnât like black people if they donât act like white people,â the witness, who would be about 27 now, told investigators in the taped conversation. âThey like black people if they act white. Other than that, they talked a lot of bad things about black people.â_


And I posted a link with an excerpt from the FBI investigation which stated: "Detective Chris Serino described Zimmerman as overzealous and as having a "little hero complex" but *not as a racist, according to the FBI report*" (emphasis mine)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But a family member coming out against the accused is evidence that will get a lot of consideration.


Only to those who have already convicted Zimmerman in their minds.

Reality is her story carries no more weight than the MANY others that refute it, so in the end you have to believe the majority, OR assume they ALL lied, and go with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ONLY


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yet we're supposed to take Zimmerman at his *word* that the shooting was self defense.


NO, the forensics and eyewitnesses back that up.
The "racism" and "sexual assaults" are *meaningless *to the event since they* can't be substantiated* at all, even after a LONG FBI investigation, in which you KNOW they tried hard to dig up some dirt


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

watcher said:


> And the defense will call the FBI agent which investigated the charge and came to the conclusion that Zimmerman is not racist. Do you REALLY think the state is going to put ONE person on the stand when they can be rebutted with an FBI investigation?


Especially one who is probably being paid by the real bigots to say that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I think Zimmerman's Fox News interview last night was a mistake. He doesn't interview well. For his own good, I hope his lawyer keeps him away from the camera in the future.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think Zimmerman's Fox News interview last night was a mistake. He doesn't interview well. For his own good, I hope his lawyer keeps him away from the camera in the future.


Nevada, you see everything Zimmerman does as a mistake.
You really like it when he is in front of a camera so you can find fault with what he says.
Of course the people who have already decided he is guilty thinks he should disappear. If he does they can keep on with the charade that he is guilty.

Just give the judge and the mobs time. They will get rid of Zimmerman before the trial.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> I think Zimmerman's Fox News interview last night was a mistake. He doesn't interview well. For his own good, I hope his lawyer keeps him away from the camera in the future.


I agree it was a mistake. It's always a mistake to talk about your own case in public before the trial. But I didn't see anything in the interview that is particularly ----ing. Mostly the same things he's said to the police already.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I agree it was a mistake. It's always a mistake to talk about your own case in public before the trial. But I didn't see anything in the interview that is particularly ----ing. Mostly the same things he's said to the police already.


One thing he said that stood out was that he claims he didn't know that Martin was dead, or even shot, until he was at the police station an hour after the shooting. That's at odds with what witnesses say he said immediately after the shooting.

I was also surprised that he claimed he knew nothing about Florida's stand your ground law before the shooting. It was my understanding that concealed carry classes covered local laws.

He also changed his story about following Martin, claiming last night that he was never more than 100 feet from his car. I don't understand his statement about Martin "skipping", and how that was supposed to help his case (do burglars typically skip?).

I'm sure that prosecutors watched the interview and were hanging on every word. I'm sure they found more inconsistencies than I did. I'm left with the impression that O'Mara didn't prepare him for this interview as well as he should have.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> One thing he said that stood out was that he claims he didn't know that Martin was dead, or even shot, until he was at the police station an hour after the shooting. That's at odds with what witnesses say he said immediately after the shooting.


The reason I find that troubling is that if Zimmerman really believed his life was in danger and that there was a chance the first shot missed Martin, I don't understand why he didn't shoot again.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reason I find that troubling is that if Zimmerman really believed his life was in danger and that there was a chance the first shot missed Martin, I don't understand why he didn't shoot again.


Are you reduced to asking yourself a question and answering it in another post?
Or are you just thinking if you post enough you might sway others to want to hang Zimmerman also.
How many do you want on the end of the rope with you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Are you reduced to asking yourself a question and answering it in another post?
> Or are you just thinking if you post enough you might sway others to want to hang Zimmerman also.
> How many do you want on the end of the rope with you?


I wasn't answering a question, I was clarifying why Zimmerman's inconsistency about knowing of he shot & killed Martin might be a big deal. I just didn't make that clear in the first post.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reason I find that troubling is that if Zimmerman really believed his life was in danger and that there was a chance the first shot missed Martin, I don't understand why he didn't shoot again.


The first reason that pops into my mind is he couldn't because his weapon jammed. One problem with a semi auto is in a fur ball (when you are in physical contact fight) and fire the weapon the slide can not move far or fast enough to fully eject the brass or to strip the next round from the mag. This renders the weapon into nothing more than a very short club until you can play slap and tickle to clear the weapon.

The second reason is Martin stopped pounding on him which allowed him to escape.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I wasn't answering a question, I was clarifying why Zimmerman's inconsistency about knowing of he shot & killed Martin might be a big deal. I just didn't make that clear in the first post.


Shock does strange things to people. Talk to a few first responders about some of the strange things they've seen people do at traumatic event sites.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The first reason that pops into my mind is he couldn't because his weapon jammed.


Then why didn't he try to shoot anyway? It has never been his claim that he tried to shoot a second time. Even if the gun was jammed, that wouldn't have prevented him from trying to pull the trigger a second time.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't he try to shoot anyway? It has never been his claim that he tried to shoot a second time. Even if the gun was jammed, that wouldn't have prevented him from trying to pull the trigger a second time.


His story has always been that when he fired the shot Martin stopped beating him and said something along the lines of "you got me," which he took to mean the kid was giving up. No need to shoot again. Being in fear for your life can change from moment to moment. Obviously he wasn't afraid for his life when he got out of his car. He probably was when he was attacked. When the attack stopped, he probably went back to not being afraid, although he does say he tried to pin Martin down, which would make sense if he didn't know he was dead.

Everything he has said that sounds "off" most likely sounds that way because it was an intense experience that would be difficult to put into words even for someone who is good with words, which Zimmerman is not. O'Mara should not have allowed the interview, period. He should have said, "If you do this interview, you'll need to find a new lawyer."


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't he try to shoot anyway? It has never been his claim that he tried to shoot a second time. Even if the gun was jammed, that wouldn't have prevented him from trying to pull the trigger a second time.


That detail, weather he pulled the trigger a second time or not, hasn't been included in any of the vast quantity of "leaked" information that I could find, but that doesn't mean that he _didn't_ try; it just means that forensic evidence won't prove/disprove either way.

But I'm not sure why you would believe GZ on this detail, which, as we both have admitted, hasn't really been addressed, when it is not supported or disproved by physical evidence, and why you do _not _believe that GZ could possibly have been in fear for his life, when the physical evidence _does_ tend to support that idea.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Narshalla said:


> That detail, weather he pulled the trigger a second time or not, hasn't been included in any of the vast quantity of "leaked" information that I could find, but that doesn't mean that he _didn't_ try; it just means that forensic evidence won't prove/disprove either way.
> 
> But I'm not sure why you would believe GZ on this detail, which, as we both have admitted, hasn't really been addressed, when it is not supported or disproved by physical evidence, and why you do _not _believe that GZ could possibly have been in fear for his life, when the physical evidence _does_ tend to support that idea.


What is known is that Zimmerman's KelTec 9mm did not chamber another cartridge after the first shot. The 9mm didn't jam the spent casing during ejection. Nor did it jam a second round trying to chamber it. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had pulled the trigger twice. 

So far nothing has been released that shows the KelTec was tested. What happened to the KelTec is unusual enough to merit an investigation. Something interfered with the KelTec to keep the slide from cycling.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> That detail, weather he pulled the trigger a second time or not, hasn't been included in any of the vast quantity of "leaked" information that I could find, but that doesn't mean that he _didn't_ try; it just means that forensic evidence won't prove/disprove either way.


OK, maybe I missed it. Do you have a reference to Zimmerman claiming that he tried to shoot a second time?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

It's pretty likely he never tried to fire a second shot. If he had, he would know that his gun failed to chamber a round and he should have chambered one manually. That's assuming he was trained in handgun usage, which I think he was.


----------



## bassmaster17327 (Apr 6, 2011)

Darren said:


> What is known is that Zimmerman's KelTec 9mm did not chamber another cartridge after the first shot. The 9mm didn't jam the spent casing during ejection. Nor did it jam a second round trying to chamber it. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had pulled the trigger twice.
> 
> So far nothing has been released that shows the KelTec was tested. What happened to the KelTec is unusual enough to merit an investigation. Something interfered with the KelTec to keep the slide from cycling.


Since he was on his back when he fired he could not have had a full arm extension when he fired, more than likely he "fired from the hip". Without enough resistence against the firearm they will not chamber another round, I have seen it happen many times at the range by someone that let the firearm recoil to much.

Every evidence I have heard matches Zimmermans story, if he is fuzzy about some things that happpened during the incident I can understand that also. I don't think my memory would be perfect after having my head slammed into the concrete


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't he try to shoot anyway? It has never been his claim that he tried to shoot a second time. Even if the gun was jammed, that wouldn't have prevented him from trying to pull the trigger a second time.


The odds are he did, and most likely a third time as well, but doesn't remember it. Even trained people, e.g. LEOs, can not remember how many rounds they fired in a high stress training situation much less after an actual life and death one.

I'm not surprised Zimmerman can't remember if he tried to fire more than one round. I'd be more surprised if he could have remembered NOT trying to fire a second round.

I haven't seen the info but I'm willing to bet his weapon was jammed. There's next to no way to fire a semi auto while in close contact w/o it jamming. You need a minimum of 3 inches of clearance behind the slide of most weapons and nothing touching either side for it to cycle correctly. W/o that the slide will not cycle fully and, as I stated, either not eject the spent case or fail to strip the next round from the magazine.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> It's pretty likely he never tried to fire a second shot. If he had, he would know that his gun failed to chamber a round and he should have chambered one manually. That's assuming he was trained in handgun usage, which I think he was.


If he was in a furball he wouldn't be able to play slap and tickle. You can't clear a weapon when someone is in physical contact with you.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> It's pretty likely he never tried to fire a second shot. If he had, he would know that his gun failed to chamber a round and he should have chambered one manually. That's assuming he was trained in handgun usage, which I think he was.


In that type of incident a person may not know how many times they pulled the trigger. May not even know if they shot or not.

I had an uncle that went deer hunting near our house. He came back in a while and said he had shot a deer and needed help to find it. We hadn't heard a shot though. When we got to where he supposedly shot the deer we found all of his ammo in a pile where he had levered it out of his rifle without firing a shot. He thought he had emptied his rifle on the deer. He had, just never pulled the trigger a single time. He didn't realize he hadn't fired a shot.

I would imagine shooting a person might make a person a little more excited than a deer.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I think Zimmerman's Fox News interview last night was a mistake. He doesn't interview well. For his own good, I hope his lawyer keeps him away from the camera in the future.


He looked like a fool. It was especially bad when he talked about the boy's death being part of God's plan. He just made himself look worse. How could he believe it was God's plan to kill an unarmed child?
I cannot believe the lawyer wanted him to do that interview (or allowed him). It will be used against him in court, no doubt. He really hung himself in many ways. It was probably one of the worst things he has done that will end up hurting him.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

watcher said:


> If he was in a furball he wouldn't be able to play slap and tickle. You can't clear a weapon when someone is in physical contact with you.


But you certainly can once you're on your feet again. It's one of the basics taught in every handgun class. If your weapon fails to fire in a life or death situation, you clear it. That's why I think he probably didn't try to fire again. Of course it's possible he wasn't thinking clearly, but supposedly he trained pretty regularly, and if you train regularly these things become automatic.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

watcher said:


> The first reason that pops into my mind is he couldn't because his weapon jammed. One problem with a semi auto is in a fur ball (when you are in physical contact fight) and fire the weapon the slide can not move far or fast enough to fully eject the brass or to strip the next round from the mag. This renders the weapon into nothing more than a very short club until you can play slap and tickle to clear the weapon.
> 
> The second reason is Martin stopped pounding on him which allowed him to escape.


Nevada don't want to hear logic.

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

mekasmom said:


> He looked like a fool. It was especially bad when he talked about the boy's death being part of God's plan. He just made himself look worse. How could he believe it was God's plan to kill an unarmed child?
> I cannot believe the lawyer wanted him to do that interview (or allowed him). It will be used against him in court, no doubt. He really hung himself in many ways. It was probably one of the worst things he has done that will end up hurting him.


Sounds good to me.My wife shot an unarmed Guy trying to get in our House.It was Gods Plan and nothing could change it.Was my wife sorry she shot the Guy ? No! Was she sorry the Guy put himself in this position? Yes! Would she do it again? Yes!

Do you get my point.All of Gods Plan!

big rockpile


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

big rockpile said:


> Nevada don't want to hear logic.
> 
> big rockpile


Nevada, has apparently forgotten the discussion or failed to read the info that was posted several times earlier in other threads. If Zimmerman would have been the cold blooded killer stalking Martin, he would have shot him multiple times at a distance where the KelTec would have cycled. 

I'm curious how Zimmerman hit Martin center of mass. It was a great shot considering the circumstances and the KelTec failing to cycle.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> Sounds good to me.My wife shot an unarmed Guy trying to get in our House.It was Gods Plan and nothing could change it.Was my wife sorry she shot the Guy ? No! Was she sorry the Guy put himself in this position? Yes! Would she do it again? Yes!
> 
> Do you get my point.All of Gods Plan!
> 
> big rockpile


Same thing happened with my sister.
She shot a man who broke in her front door.
She hated to do it but it was him or her.
If it happened again she would do the same thing.

As I don't believe in God I can't say it was his plan.
It is just part of life and death.
Some people will let another person kill them, some people refuse to do that.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> Nevada, has apparently forgotten the discussion or failed to read the info that was posted several times earlier in other threads. If Zimmerman would have been the cold blooded killer stalking Martin, he would have shot him multiple times at a distance where the KelTec would have cycled.
> 
> I'm curious how Zimmerman hit Martin center of mass. It was a great shot considering the circumstances and the KelTec failing to cycle.


Sort of hard to miss when they are setting on top of you.
Failing to cycle will only prevent another shot, it doesn't have any effect on where the first shot goes.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

pancho said:


> Sort of hard to miss when they are setting on top of you.
> Failing to cycle will only prevent another shot, it doesn't have any effect on where the first shot goes.


Figuring Zimmerman is Right Handed I would say Pistol was at an angle,pointing just below Martins Ribs,taking out Lower Left Lung,and center Right Lung.With Clothes in the area wouldn't let the Pistol cycle and kick out spent casing and Reload another round.He would have lost oxygen to the Brain very fast.

big rockpile


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> Figuring Zimmerman is Right Handed I would say Pistol was at an angle,pointing just below Martins Ribs,taking out Lower Left Lung,and center Right Lung.With Clothes in the area wouldn't let the Pistol cycle and kick out spent casing and Reload another round.He would have lost oxygen to the Brain very fast.
> 
> big rockpile


And if the weapon was close enough a vast majority of propellent gasses would have also entered the wound. That has a NASTY effect on the insides of the human body.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mekasmom said:


> He looked like a fool. It was especially bad when he talked about the boy's death being part of God's plan. He just made himself look worse. How could he believe it was God's plan to kill an unarmed child?
> I cannot believe the lawyer wanted him to do that interview (or allowed him). It will be used against him in court, no doubt. He really hung himself in many ways. It was probably one of the worst things he has done that will end up hurting him.


I think Zimmerman got a raw deal in this interview. Everyone involved was benefiting except Zimmerman. Hannity got ratings, O'Mara got the legal defense fund beefed-up, but Zimmerman hurt his case -- badly.

Zimmerman is terrible at interviews. He always seems to be making self-serving excuses, true or not. Worse yet, Zimmerman seems to make things up as he goes along, which creates more inconsistencies. It's just his way. O'Mara needs to keep him away from interviews. But after this interview it may already be too late.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I think Zimmerman got a raw deal in this interview. Everyone involved was benefiting except Zimmerman. Hannity got ratings, O'Mara got the legal defense fund beefed-up, but Zimmerman hurt his case -- badly.
> 
> Zimmerman is terrible at interviews. He always seems to be making self-serving excuses, true or not. Worse yet, Zimmerman seems to make things up as he goes along, which creates more inconsistencies. It's just his way. O'Mara needs to keep him away from interviews. But after this interview it may already be too late.


This is the first thing you have said on this subject I can agree with.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

big rockpile said:


> Figuring Zimmerman is Right Handed I would say Pistol was at an angle,pointing just below Martins Ribs,taking out Lower Left Lung,and center Right Lung.With Clothes in the area wouldn't let the Pistol cycle and kick out spent casing and Reload another round.He would have lost oxygen to the Brain very fast.
> 
> big rockpile


IIRC the autopsy showed that Zimmerman got both lungs and the heart.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reason I find that troubling is that if Zimmerman really believed his life was in danger and that there was a chance the first shot missed Martin,* I don't understand why* he didn't shoot again.


How is that possible, when it was REPORTED from the beginning that the GUN JAMMED?

You just make all this up as you go along don't you?
I KNOW we have discussed *all *this at length over the last few months


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> an unarmed child?


You left out:

"who was tryiing to BEAT him to death"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is that possible, when it was REPORTED from the beginning that the GUN JAMMED?
> 
> You just make all this up as you go along don't you?
> I KNOW we have discussed *all *this at length over the last few months


Did he TRY to shoot again?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did he TRY to shoot again?


*Why would it matter*, other than to fuel your fantasies?

Police officers (supposedly "highly trained") often can't tell you how many shots they fired in similar situations.

You want to nit pick every little WORD and action to make him look GUILTY, even if you have to* make things up* to do it.

It doesn't matter if he tried to pull the trigger again, and it doesn't matter if he "mentioned" it at any time.

What DOES matter is he was being BEATEN, and he pulled it at least ONCE and *stopped the threat*


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Darren said:


> IIRC the autopsy showed that Zimmerman got both lungs and the heart.


Ok if he was Right Handed he just clipped Lower part,if South Paw he would get a Good hit.Either way Martin didn't suffer.

big rockpile


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What DOES matter is he was being BEATEN, and he pulled it at least ONCE and *stopped the threat*


But Zimmerman now says he wasn't sure he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting. How could Zimmerman have been sure that the threat was stopped if there was a chance he missed him?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But Zimmerman now says he wasn't sure he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting. How could Zimmerman have been sure that the threat was stopped if there was a chance he missed him?


When Martin stopped beating him and slamming his head on the sidewalk might have been what gave Zimmerman the idea the threat stopped.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> When Martin stopped beating him and slamming his head on the sidewalk might have been what gave Zimmerman the idea the threat stopped.


How did he know Martin wouldn't start again?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How did he know Martin wouldn't start again?


If you had read any of the evidence instead of making up stories in your head you would know.
Try reading the evidence and see if you can come up with an answer for your question. It is all there in the evidence. All it takes is reading it and not making up some fantasy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> If you had read any of the evidence instead of making up stories in your head you would know.
> Try reading the evidence and see if you can come up with an answer for your question. It is all there in the evidence. All it takes is reading it and not making up some fantasy.


Zimmerman said he didn't know that he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting. If he really believed that his life was in danger I don't understand why he wouldn't have tried to shoot again.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman said he didn't know that he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting. If he really believed that his life was in danger I don't understand why he wouldn't have tried to shoot again.


Either you haven't read the statements or are having a hard time understanding them.
It is spelled out right there in the statements.
Might be a good idea to read them and quit listening so much to the race baiters.
Your questions show that you are not very familiar with the evidence.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman said he didn't know that he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting. If he really believed that his life was in danger I don't understand why he wouldn't have tried to shoot again.


Zimmerman did what Martin did not. If Martin hadn't beat Zimmerman after he knocked him down, he would be alive today. Zimmerman reacted as expected under the law. Once an attacker stops attacking you have no legal right to continue trying to stop an attack That means you don't pull a Bernie Goetz and continue shooting people after they stop attacking. Just because they're still breathing is not a legal reason to shoot them again.

That's a concept you don't seem to understand. You think it was OK for Martin to continue beating Zimmerman after knocking him to the ground based on the idea that Zimmerman was trying to abduct him. Even Martin's dad wasn't concerned about Trayvon being abducted when he and his fiance got home and found the fiance's son by himself. There's several weird things about this case. Martin's father's lack of concern about Martin's disappearance after going to the 7-Eleven is one. The KelTec malfunction is another.

The police got there almost immediately after the shooting. Their first action was to disarm Zimmerman and take him into custody for their protection. That's a standard routine for police.

Haven't you ever been in a situation where you've lost track of time? Things may be such that you either over or under esimate the amount of time that's passed?

Zimmerman was immediately handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. He wouldn't have been able to see Martin or anything that was being done to resuscitate him. The fact he didn't try to shoot Martin twice is proof the murder 2 charge is bunk. He had no way of knowing Martin was dead until someone told him later. It's prety obvious that as fast as the police arrived after the shooting, Zimmerman didn't have time to do anything but answer a few LEO questions before being put into a cruiser.

Zimmerman flunked a self defense test by not immediately checking his firearm after Martin went down and he was able to stand up. If he had tried to continue shooting because he was a racist with a depraved mind out to kill a Black kid, he would have known something was wrong with the KelTec. The police should have found another round in the chamber if Zimmerman was the cold-blooded killer many claim. And Martin would have been shot multiple times.

That firearm malfunction will be critical in proving Zimmerman's innocence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Either you haven't read the statements or are having a hard time understanding them.
> It is spelled out right there in the statements.
> Might be a good idea to read them and quit listening so much to the race baiters.
> Your questions show that you are not very familiar with the evidence.


What an I missing? Are you saying that Zimmerman tried to shoot a second time?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What an I missing? Are you saying that Zimmerman tried to shoot a second time?


It should be obvious by now that Zimmerman did not try to shoot a second time. That also supports the fact that Zimmerman did not have a depraved mind. If anyone has a depraved mind at this point it's Crump, the prosecutor and possibly the judge for obviously trying to lynch Zimmerman


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada, quit being deliberately obtuse. Zimmerman has said all along that when he fired the shot, Martin stopped beating him and said something along the lines of "you got me" which led Zimmerman to believe he was surrendering. In that case, it would be wrong to continue shooting him since the attacker was not threatening his life at that moment. He claims that he tried to pin Martin down and asked for help from one of the witnesses.

What you don't seem to understand is that fear is a very fluid thing. It would make sense for him to be in fear of Martin when he was sitting in his car and Martin was circling the car. Then when Martin started moving away from him, that would flip a psychological switch making Martin no longer an immediate threat, thus letting the fear subside to the point that Zimmerman was comfortable getting out of his car. When he was surprised from behind, the fear level would jump, and then skyrocket as he was being beaten. But as soon as the attacker stopped beating him and made a submissive move, the fear level would drop again, to the point that he wasn't in immediate fear for his life, but was still afraid enough to pin the attacker down. So the easy answer to why he didn't shoot again is that he didn't need to. His life was no longer in immediate danger, whether he knew his shot hit the attacker or not.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> It should be obvious by now that Zimmerman did not try to shoot a second time. That also supports the fact that Zimmerman did not have a depraved mind.


Very good point.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> It should be obvious by now that Zimmerman did not try to shoot a second time. That also supports the fact that Zimmerman did not have a depraved mind


It suggests that he didn't really believe his life was in danger. It doesn't make sense for him to not try to shoot a second time, particularly if he wasn't sure he hit Martin with the first shot.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What an I missing? Are you saying that Zimmerman tried to shoot a second time?


I am saying you need to read the statements.
Asking this question is proof you didn't even read what I posted.
Read the statements given under oath.
Forget all about the fantasies in your head, the rumors, your beliefs, your racism, race baiters fake stories, and statements not given under oath.

Just concentrate on the statements given under oath and the evidence collected by the police. Suddenly everything will become clear. You have too much running around in your head. No wonder you have a hard time understanding what happened.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> How did he know Martin wouldn't start again?


Maybe he's not an Obama fan and can think for himself?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> It suggests that he didn't really believe his life was in danger. It doesn't make sense for him to not try to shoot a second time, particularly if he wasn't sure he hit Martin with the first shot.


That's quite a stretch, but keep holding that rope


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It suggests that he didn't really believe his life was in danger. It doesn't make sense for him to not try to shoot a second time, particularly if he wasn't sure he hit Martin with the first shot.


I'm not sure if I can say it any simpler. Here goes. When the danger goes away you stop what you were doing to make it go away. That's about as simple as I can say it. 

Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against concrete. 

Zimmerman feared for his life. 

Zimmerman shot Martin. 

Martin stopped beating Zimmerman and trying to stop him from screaming.

Zimmerman stopped.

Zimmerman understood that part of his CCW training. *When the danger goes away, you stop shooting.*

Because the police arrived so quickly, Zimmermna didn't have a chance to do much of anyhing else. He did understand by law he could't continue shooting Martin afer he stopped being a threat. You're trying to say that because Zimmerman complied with the law he wasn't afraid. It doesn't matter how afraid you are for your life, once the danger goes away, you stop.

That's where Martin went over the line. He should have never beat Zimmerman after he knocked him down.

You're trying to prove Zimmerman wasn't afraid for his life. I think his screams for help proved that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I am saying you need to read the statements.
> Asking this question is proof you didn't even read what I posted.
> Read the statements given under oath.
> Forget all about the fantasies in your head, the rumors, your beliefs, your racism, race baiters fake stories, and statements not given under oath.
> ...


Look, I know that Zimmerman knew that he shot Martin, and even knew Martin was dead before the police arrived. We all know that because of the discussion Zimmerman had with a witness before the police arrived. I'm just showing you how Zimmerman is throwing out anything the comes to mind that he things might help him. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, he's just throwing ideas at the wall to see if they stick. But the danger in doing that is that it gives the prosecution more information to use against him.

Zimmerman doesn't interview well, and he wasn't properly prepared for the interview. The Hannity interview never should have happened. Honestly, I haven't seen anyone interview this badly since Alberto Gonzales testified before congress.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Look, I know that Zimmerman knew that he shot Martin, and even knew Martin was dead before the police arrived. We all know that because of the discussion Zimmerman had with a witness before the police arrived. I'm just showing you how Zimmerman is throwing out anything the comes to mind that he things might help him. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, he's just throwing ideas at the wall to see if they stick. But the danger in doing that is that it gives the prosecution more information to use against him.
> 
> Zimmerman doesn't interview well, and he wasn't properly prepared for the interview. The Hannity interview never should have happened. Honestly, I haven't seen anyone interview this badly since Alberto Gonzales testified before congress.


For someone who has failed to read and understand the statements given under oath and evidence gathered by police you sure do seem to know a lot about the incident.

Where have you been getting your information? It isn't from the statements. It isn't from the evidence. It isn't from the witnessess.

I think the first three words of your post tells us where most of your information comes from.
In case you forget them or can't understand them, "Look, I know"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> For someone who has failed to read and understand the statements given under oath and evidence gathered by police you sure do seem to know a lot about the incident.
> 
> Where have you been getting your information? It isn't from the statements. It isn't from the evidence. It isn't from the witnessess.
> 
> ...


Did you watch the Hannity interview?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did you watch the Hannity interview?


NO, what does that have to do with statements taken under oath, evidence gathered at the scene, and eye witness statements?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> NO, what does that have to do with statements taken under oath, evidence gathered at the scene, and eye witness statements?


My point is that Zimmerman contradicted some of that evidence during the Hannity interview. It's a gift to the prosecution.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My point is that Zimmerman contradicted some of that evidence during the Hannity interview. It's a gift to the prosecution.


I think I will stick to what was said under oath, not what was said on some TV program. You may choose differently.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I think I will stick to what was said under oath, not what was said on some TV program. You may choose differently.


Stick with anything you like, but the prosecution will still bring those contradictions up at trial.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> It suggests that he didn't really believe his life was in danger.


No, it suggests that he didn't believe his life was STILL in danger.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did he TRY to shoot again?


As i pointed out the odds are he did. Even police are taught the 9mm is such a poor stopping round that they will need multiple hits to stop an attack. The min is a "double tap"

Look at the after action reports of police shotings and you will see there is almost always many rds fired. Not all of that is because LEOs are poor shots.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Stick with anything you like, but the prosecution will still bring those contradictions up at trial.


We will go over this again. Had to do the same thing a while back.
You do know a TV show is not real life don't you?
Do you think the Road Runner really buys all of the stuff he has on TV?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> We will go over this again. Had to do the same thing a while back.
> You do know a TV show is not real life don't you?
> Do you think the Road Runner really buys all of the stuff he has on TV?


Zimmerman discussing the facts of the case on TV is very real, and you can bet it's real enough to be used in court.

One of the reasons lawyers let their clients be interviewed on TV is because it gives the client an opportunity to tell his side of the story, potentially reaching would-be jurors, without being cross-examined. TV interviews are very real.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman discussing the facts of the case on TV is very real, and you can bet it's real enough to be used in court.
> 
> One of the reasons lawyers let their clients be interviewed on TV is because it gives the client an opportunity to tell his side of the story, potentially reaching would-be jurors, without being cross-examined. TV interviews are very real.


Did he jump up in the air and say Beep Beep?
If not it wasn't the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My point is that *Zimmerman contradicted* some of that evidence during the Hannity interview. It's a gift to the prosecution.


So you say.

You've been know to hear things differently than others.
What happened to "I'll wait for the evidence AT THE TRIAL"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But Zimmerman now says he wasn't sure he shot Martin until an hour after the shooting.
> 
> *How could Zimmerman have been sure that* *the threat was stopped* if there was a chance he missed him?


Because the *BEATING* STOPPED

Why pretend you don't know things that are so SIMPLE?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Either you haven't read the statements or are having a hard time understanding them.
> It is spelled out right there in the statements.
> Might be a good idea to read them and quit listening so much to the race baiters.
> Your questions show that you are not very familiar with the evidence.


Um, did you watch the interveiw? He's relating what Zimmerman, himself stated during the interveiw, not a race baiter.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> I'm not sure if I can say it any simpler. Here goes. When the danger goes away you stop what you were doing to make it go away. That's about as simple as I can say it.
> 
> Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against concrete.
> 
> ...


This makes sense to me. My only question is why he backtracked when he was heading back to his truck. If he had continued on to his truck, the altercation could have been avoided all together.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> NO, what does that have to do with statements taken under oath, evidence gathered at the scene, and eye witness statements?


Because Zimmerman was the one being interveiwed. DUH......


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> We will go over this again. Had to do the same thing a while back.
> You do know a TV show is not real life don't you?
> Do you think the Road Runner really buys all of the stuff he has on TV?


IF you had watched the interview you would know that Zimmerman was being interveiwed with his attorney present. A bit different than Road Runner.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Um, did you watch the interveiw? He's relating what Zimmerman, himself stated during the interveiw, not a race baiter.


Was Zimmerman under oath?
Again, it was a TV show.
Please don't tell me you are like Nevada and think all TV shows are real.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

pancho said:


> Was Zimmerman under oath?
> Again, it was a TV show.
> Please don't tell me you are like Nevada and think all TV shows are real.


It doesn't matter if he was under oath. Anything he says on TV can be used against him. I don't think Nevada is correct that it will be devastating to his case, but it sure won't help. His lawyer should not have allowed it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Trayvon's current picture did not fit the Presidents or Socialist Media agenda so they made up there own story and included a picture that did. Obama said, " If I had a son he would look like Trayvon". That really sweet of Obama, is he referring to him at 12 or his real picture at 17?


For those of us who thought we were well informed and weren't.....quite the realty check,



















That old adage applies here. . . "there are two sides to every story" . . .we don't always get the truth from the liberal media. One of my favorite rants...the liberal controlledmedia...televisionnews...newspapers...magazines...radio...all continue to show 12 year old Trayvon...NOT 17 year old Trayvon...they continue to show the 5 year old picture BECAUSE it helps to cement in your mind the little, cute, hoodie wearing youngster who was stalked by this monster.


In reality.."little Trayvon"...at the time of his death...stood almost 6'2" tall...weighed 175 muscular pounds...had numerous run ins with authorities (both at school and local police)...had been stopped and almost arrested two days before his death for...smacking a bus driver in the face...because the driver refused to let him ride for free...he was released because the driver was told not to press charges by the bus company and to continue on his route.


When "little Trayvon" was suspended at school...it was not only because he tried to bring a little marijuana in with him...he was in possession of wedding rings and other jewelry...watches etc. that he said he "found" along with a large screwdriver...while on the way to school that day...the jewelry was turned over to the Police by the school. I am not trying to say this was a good shooting...I am not trying to say this kid deserved to die...I am saying...the media in the USA is controlled by liberals who twist and distort what you see and hear in order for you to see things their way. The media is now on a mission to publicly lynch the man he who shot Trayvon defending himself.


Not a single paper has printed RECENT photos of this kid...because...it would not keep your interest in this case... Not a single paper will admit that this kid was a marijuana dealer...his friends on facebook all say he had the "best plants"...not a single paper will show you any of his recent photos where he shows off a mouthful of gold teeth....all of his tattoos...not a single paper will tell the news like it really is....and NOT how they want you to think it is...President Obama...looked at the FIVE year old photo the media chose to show the Nation...and said..."If I had a son...he would look like Trayvon" So from that comment...should I assume you did not bother to look for the facts in this shooting..or should I assume you want a son who is a 17 year old drug dealing, gold teethed thug whose name on one of his facebook profiles was "wild *****"...who 'finds" jewelry and burglary tools on the way to school ? 



A fair and impartial news media in the USA ? One that does not follow the liberal agenda? Is NOT looking to further divide this already fractured Nation?


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

You do know that the photo you posted is not Trayvon, but is actually Jayceon Terrell Taylor, also known as Game, a 32-year-old rapper from Compton, Calif., near Los Angeles.

But hey, nice try. Perhaps if people checked these chain emails and such, they wouldn't be posting false info and lies.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

haypoint said:


> In reality.."little Trayvon"...at the time of his death...stood almost 6'2" tall...weighed 175 muscular pounds...


Hmm, so why does the autopsy report list him as 5'11 and 158 lbs? Guess that chain letter is full of false comments (otherwise known as lies). But don't let the facts stop your rant, carry on I suppose......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Guess that chain letter is full of false comments (otherwise known as* lies)*


Just like the image Trayvon's supporters want to convey


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Okay, and when did I say that their image was the correct one? Oh right, I didn't, just pointed out that the 'facts' presented in the post with image were not factual at all, just blatant simple minded lies.

But can't bring yourself to that, just try to spin into another direction. That's cool... when all else fails I suppose.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Okay, and *when did I say* that their image was the correct one? Oh right, _I didn't_, just pointed out that the 'facts' presented in the post with image were not factual at all, just blatant simple minded lies.
> 
> But can't bring yourself to that, just try to spin into another direction. That's cool... when all else fails I suppose.


Did I say YOU said anything of the sort?

Get a grip. Not everything is about YOU


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did I say YOU said anything of the sort?
> 
> Get a grip. Not everything is about YOU


What you talking 'bout BearFoot Farm? (said in my best Different Strokes voice)

I never said that everything was about me. I simply asked a question. 

But thanks for the clarification, I was beginning to wonder what with my business having to much that I had to pass on some jobs and finding the front clip I needed for my son's 64 F100, I was starting to think it was all about me. Whew, I sure needed that attitude adjustment. Many, many thanks......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I never said that everything was *about me*. I simply asked a question.





> *when did I say*


It's those tricky WORDS again.
I tend to take them for what they MEAN.

Who were you referring to when you used the word "*I*"?
You used it quite a bit in your reply also.
Did it mean the same person, or did it change again?


> I simply asked a question.


There sure were a lot of wasted words in that post if all you did was ask a simple question


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sorry, folks, I got the wrong guy. Here he is:


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Now now, Buckwheat isn't the guy is he? Gosh either you need to get new material or at least stop believing the hype. My friend showed me that earlier and said that "Simple minds will believe simple things". I guess that is true.

Another friend (black guy) still believes that most people think all black folks look alike and as a result show their small IQ and lack of general common sense, and post like the last few might just prove him right....

Perhaps googling some more pictures of black males will help you to find an appropriate representation....keep trying slugger, you might just accomplish something..... so far you are 0 for 2, but batting an low .000% is nothing to be ashamed of......

Link to photo:
http://thechive.com/2011/12/05/the-little-rascals-then-and-now-20-photos/


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Sorry, folks, I got the wrong guy. Here he is:


Huge difference from the thug picture you posted earlier. Oh, ok, now I see that this is Buckwheat. LOL


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Huge difference from the thug picture you posted earlier. Oh, ok, now I see that this is Buckwheat. LOL


They both look the same to me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> Now now, Buckwheat isn't the guy is he? Gosh either you need to get new material or at least stop believing the hype. My friend showed me that earlier and said that "Simple minds will believe simple things". I guess that is true.
> 
> Another friend (black guy) still believes that most people think all black folks look alike and as a result show their small IQ and lack of general common sense, and post like the last few might just prove him right....
> 
> ...


I'm impressed at how quickly you figured out Buckwheat. I generally research emails, but I didn't for Martin. I should have known better. Sorry. I thought that since there aren't any recent pictures of Martin, I'd throw one in of my favorite Rascal. Just trying to be funny, sorry you missed it.

In my vast experience among Blacks, I have discoverd many Blacks cannot tell white folk apart any better than most people can tell the difference between a Korean and a Chinese person. Without any recent photos of Martin, hard to tell how he looks as an adult. Most folks would have a hard time picking me out of a crowd if all they had was my 6th grade class photo to go by.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> Now now, Buckwheat isn't the guy is he? Gosh either you need to get new material or at least stop believing the hype. My friend showed me that earlier and said that "Simple minds will believe simple things". I guess that is true.
> 
> Another friend (black guy) still believes that most people think all black folks look alike and as a result show their small IQ and lack of general common sense, and post like the last few might just prove him right....
> 
> ...


I think you are 0 for 10. Those photos on that link can't be correct. Darla was born in 1931. There is one with a WalMart uniform and a couple teenagers with digital cameras. Yes they do resemble the Rascals, but these actors would be old when those hair and clothes styles were out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I think you are 0 for 10. Those photos on that link can't be correct. Darla was born in 1931. There is one with a WalMart uniform and a couple teenagers with digital cameras. Yes they do resemble the Rascals, but these actors would be old when those hair and clothes styles were out.


You're joking, aren't you?


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

haypoint said:


> I think you are 0 for 10. Those photos on that link can't be correct. Darla was born in 1931. There is one with a WalMart uniform and a couple teenagers with digital cameras. Yes they do resemble the Rascals, but these actors would be old when those hair and clothes styles were out.


It was the remake movie of the Little Rascals, not the older one (which in my opinion was the better ones).

As for finding it so fast, Google Image search will pinpoint any image, and with a snap.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> It was the remake movie of the Little Rascals, not the older one (which in my opinion was the better ones).
> 
> As for finding it so fast, Google Image search will pinpoint any image, and with a snap.


But the "before" are the originals and the "now" are other people.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

And a swing, and another miss.....strike three, you are out.

(Hint: that still isn't Trayvon, sorry.....)

As to the photos, did you see the link?

Here, the two 'gangs':










Newer one (the remake ones, the one with the picture you posted)










Older one.

You see that they aren't the same kids, right?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Such a happy looking group of kids.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"(Hint: that still isn't Trayvon, sorry.....)"

Hint: When trying to fight claims of media bias, it's important to pay attention to what is actually SAID. I didn't see anything on there identifying that guy as Trayvon.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------

