Zimmerman case should blow up in medias face about ....now

[Sunshine]

Martin had been kicked off the football team. He had been in trouble in school. But some still want to believe him completely snow white of character and competely incapable of doing anything dishonest like casing out town homes to rob or stealing from the 7-11. If he his all that and a piece of cake, the video of him paying for his purchase would have been all over the internet by now. A cyber dollar to the one who can produce it.

Why do you lie?

Why are you stupid?

 

[Ravi]

Except you know the video of him being in the store,but let's not mention that or anything...

Link.

Im at work,try google

Here you go, from the bond hearing. Don't mind Sunshine, she thinks all blacks are thieves.

DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn't -- is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody's house or committing any type of crime sir?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes, sir.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And there's a video of that?

GILBREATH: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn't steal or anything. Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A victim's prior bad acts is reallly seldom introduced into evidence to whether the victim committed some act or other. An exception would be if the prosecution opens the door to inquiry by character witnesses or if the defendant had personal knowledge of a victim's prior bad acts.

Eighth Circuit Considers Admissibility Of Victim's Prior Threats, Character And Reputation Evidence | Federal Evidence Review

A victim's prior sexual conduct would be called into evidentiary question if she claimed to be a virgin and there was evidence to refute that, or if the defendant had personal knowledge that she was the neighborhood open hole.

There is no question that Trayvon Martin's prior acts, no matter how bad, have no relevancy to Zimmerman's state of mind because he didn't know Martin and didn't know of his history good or bad. The only relevancy would be whether Trayvon Martin's prior acts indicated a propensity to attack others that he deemed were non threatening.

It seems that very VERY few people understand the issues in this case. First will be whether Zimmerman is entitled to immunity under stand your ground laws. If that fails, Zimmerman will still be entitled to all laws relating to self defense as everyone is, including criminals in the commision of felonies.

Then they get to the issue of whether Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Trayvon Martin.

Federal rules and state rules are different.

By the way, that decision doesn't say that the evidence cannot be admitted, just that the judge was right when he decided to exclude it, and that, even if the judge was wrong to exclude said evidence, it didn't matter. The original decision also allowed testimony that the victim had a reputation of being a violent person, without actually requiring the defendant to prove that he knew about the reputation.

In applying this standard, the trial court “correctly permitted Bordeaux to introduce reputation or opinion testimony pertinent to his self-defense claim” and the circuit commended “the district court on its thoughtful approach to these difficult evidentiary issues, and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion.” Even if the trial judge had erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s violent character, the circuit concluded this was harmless as the evidence was “cumulative character evidence” with only “a slight influence” on the trial outcome. Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1051.
The circuit cited the defendant’s testimony about “numerous prior acts and threats made by Saupitty of which Bordeaux was aware before the shooting,” as properly admitted under FRE 404(b). Specifically, that the defendant “was aware that Saupitty had previously run over someone else with a car and that Saupitty had swerved at another person with his car. He also testified that he was aware that Saupitty had pulled a gun on another person and put a gun in the person’s face. Additionally, he testified that he had heard that Saupitty had a gun and threatened to ‘do something’ to Bordeaux, that Saupitty would shoot Bordeaux if he had the chance, and that Saupitty had written a rap song ‘indicating that he was going to kill [Bordeaux].’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
In addition, the trial judge also correctly allowed “defense witnesses to testify regarding specific acts or threats that Bordeaux was aware of prior to the shooting.” This included one witness who testified that “he told Bordeaux that Saupitty ‘said [he was] going to kick [Bordeaux’s] ass and stuff.’” Another witness “testified that he told Bordeaux that Saupitty threatened to ‘bust out [Bordeaux’s] mother’s windows and that if he had a chance he would bust him up or ... beat him up....’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
Finally, the trial judge allowed witnesses to testify about the victim’s “reputation[ ] for violence as permitted by Rules 404(a)(2) and 405(a). Specifically, defense witnesses testified that Saupitty has a reputation of being a ‘thug,’ ‘a troublemaker,’ ‘trying to be a tough guy,’ and of being someone who ‘likes to go around and cause trouble.’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.

Given all that, I stand by my original statement that, in general, attacking the victim is allowed as a defense tactic.

 

[Katzndogz]

A victim's prior bad acts is reallly seldom introduced into evidence to whether the victim committed some act or other. An exception would be if the prosecution opens the door to inquiry by character witnesses or if the defendant had personal knowledge of a victim's prior bad acts.

Eighth Circuit Considers Admissibility Of Victim's Prior Threats, Character And Reputation Evidence | Federal Evidence Review

A victim's prior sexual conduct would be called into evidentiary question if she claimed to be a virgin and there was evidence to refute that, or if the defendant had personal knowledge that she was the neighborhood open hole.

There is no question that Trayvon Martin's prior acts, no matter how bad, have no relevancy to Zimmerman's state of mind because he didn't know Martin and didn't know of his history good or bad. The only relevancy would be whether Trayvon Martin's prior acts indicated a propensity to attack others that he deemed were non threatening.

It seems that very VERY few people understand the issues in this case. First will be whether Zimmerman is entitled to immunity under stand your ground laws. If that fails, Zimmerman will still be entitled to all laws relating to self defense as everyone is, including criminals in the commision of felonies.

Then they get to the issue of whether Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Trayvon Martin.

Federal rules and state rules are different.

By the way, that decision doesn't say that the evidence cannot be admitted, just that the judge was right when he decided to exclude it, and that, even if the judge was wrong to exclude said evidence, it didn't matter. The original decision also allowed testimony that the victim had a reputation of being a violent person, without actually requiring the defendant to prove that he knew about the reputation.

In applying this standard, the trial court “correctly permitted Bordeaux to introduce reputation or opinion testimony pertinent to his self-defense claim” and the circuit commended “the district court on its thoughtful approach to these difficult evidentiary issues, and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion.” Even if the trial judge had erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s violent character, the circuit concluded this was harmless as the evidence was “cumulative character evidence” with only “a slight influence” on the trial outcome. Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1051.
The circuit cited the defendant’s testimony about “numerous prior acts and threats made by Saupitty of which Bordeaux was aware before the shooting,” as properly admitted under FRE 404(b). Specifically, that the defendant “was aware that Saupitty had previously run over someone else with a car and that Saupitty had swerved at another person with his car. He also testified that he was aware that Saupitty had pulled a gun on another person and put a gun in the person’s face. Additionally, he testified that he had heard that Saupitty had a gun and threatened to ‘do something’ to Bordeaux, that Saupitty would shoot Bordeaux if he had the chance, and that Saupitty had written a rap song ‘indicating that he was going to kill [Bordeaux].’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
In addition, the trial judge also correctly allowed “defense witnesses to testify regarding specific acts or threats that Bordeaux was aware of prior to the shooting.” This included one witness who testified that “he told Bordeaux that Saupitty ‘said [he was] going to kick [Bordeaux’s] ass and stuff.’” Another witness “testified that he told Bordeaux that Saupitty threatened to ‘bust out [Bordeaux’s] mother’s windows and that if he had a chance he would bust him up or ... beat him up....’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
Finally, the trial judge allowed witnesses to testify about the victim’s “reputation[ ] for violence as permitted by Rules 404(a)(2) and 405(a). Specifically, defense witnesses testified that Saupitty has a reputation of being a ‘thug,’ ‘a troublemaker,’ ‘trying to be a tough guy,’ and of being someone who ‘likes to go around and cause trouble.’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.

Given all that, I stand by my original statement that, in general, attacking the victim is allowed as a defense tactic.

Of course it is! Just as long as there is a legal basis for it. It can't be brought up just cause the defense wants it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It seems that very VERY few people understand the issues in this case. First will be whether Zimmerman is entitled to immunity under stand your ground laws. If that fails, Zimmerman will still be entitled to all laws relating to self defense as everyone is, including criminals in the commision of felonies.

Then they get to the issue of whether Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Trayvon Martin.

The reality may be just a little different then this.

First of all, it is true that criminals in the commission of a felony retain their self defense option if they are attacked. For example, possession of 20 grams of marijuana is a felony in Florida. If someone is walking down a street and possess the marijuana, they are committing a felony. If someone else then attacks them, then they retain self defense immunity.

Now, here is the correction. Under Florida Law (776.041 use of force by an aggressor) there are two conditions under which an aggressor loses self defense immunity. One is if they are the aggressor and are in the act of committing a forcible felony (such as aggravated assault), they cannot later claim self defense. The other is if the aggressor has an opportunity to escape the hostilities but decides not to do so, based on what a reasonable person would do.

So, it's likely that Zimmerman will request an immunity hearing under the self defense claim. It would then be Zimmerman's responsibility to present an affirmative defense that he feared for his life or great bodily injury. Testimony, photos, medical report, etc. - that show his injury would be used to substantiate it. It would be expected then that it would be the states responsibility to at that time provide what evidence it has (or admit they don't have it) which would show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and therefore not eligible for self defense immunity. The burden for the state would be to show that Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony OR that he had a chance to escape but failed to take it. If the state admits Martin was the aggressor, then it's very likely the case would be over as the self defense claim could stand.


776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A victim's prior bad acts is reallly seldom introduced into evidence to whether the victim committed some act or other. An exception would be if the prosecution opens the door to inquiry by character witnesses or if the defendant had personal knowledge of a victim's prior bad acts.

Eighth Circuit Considers Admissibility Of Victim's Prior Threats, Character And Reputation Evidence | Federal Evidence Review

A victim's prior sexual conduct would be called into evidentiary question if she claimed to be a virgin and there was evidence to refute that, or if the defendant had personal knowledge that she was the neighborhood open hole.

There is no question that Trayvon Martin's prior acts, no matter how bad, have no relevancy to Zimmerman's state of mind because he didn't know Martin and didn't know of his history good or bad. The only relevancy would be whether Trayvon Martin's prior acts indicated a propensity to attack others that he deemed were non threatening.

It seems that very VERY few people understand the issues in this case. First will be whether Zimmerman is entitled to immunity under stand your ground laws. If that fails, Zimmerman will still be entitled to all laws relating to self defense as everyone is, including criminals in the commision of felonies.

Then they get to the issue of whether Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Trayvon Martin.

Federal rules and state rules are different.

By the way, that decision doesn't say that the evidence cannot be admitted, just that the judge was right when he decided to exclude it, and that, even if the judge was wrong to exclude said evidence, it didn't matter. The original decision also allowed testimony that the victim had a reputation of being a violent person, without actually requiring the defendant to prove that he knew about the reputation.

In applying this standard, the trial court “correctly permitted Bordeaux to introduce reputation or opinion testimony pertinent to his self-defense claim” and the circuit commended “the district court on its thoughtful approach to these difficult evidentiary issues, and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion.” Even if the trial judge had erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s violent character, the circuit concluded this was harmless as the evidence was “cumulative character evidence” with only “a slight influence” on the trial outcome. Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1051.
The circuit cited the defendant’s testimony about “numerous prior acts and threats made by Saupitty of which Bordeaux was aware before the shooting,” as properly admitted under FRE 404(b). Specifically, that the defendant “was aware that Saupitty had previously run over someone else with a car and that Saupitty had swerved at another person with his car. He also testified that he was aware that Saupitty had pulled a gun on another person and put a gun in the person’s face. Additionally, he testified that he had heard that Saupitty had a gun and threatened to ‘do something’ to Bordeaux, that Saupitty would shoot Bordeaux if he had the chance, and that Saupitty had written a rap song ‘indicating that he was going to kill [Bordeaux].’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
In addition, the trial judge also correctly allowed “defense witnesses to testify regarding specific acts or threats that Bordeaux was aware of prior to the shooting.” This included one witness who testified that “he told Bordeaux that Saupitty ‘said [he was] going to kick [Bordeaux’s] ass and stuff.’” Another witness “testified that he told Bordeaux that Saupitty threatened to ‘bust out [Bordeaux’s] mother’s windows and that if he had a chance he would bust him up or ... beat him up....’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
Finally, the trial judge allowed witnesses to testify about the victim’s “reputation[ ] for violence as permitted by Rules 404(a)(2) and 405(a). Specifically, defense witnesses testified that Saupitty has a reputation of being a ‘thug,’ ‘a troublemaker,’ ‘trying to be a tough guy,’ and of being someone who ‘likes to go around and cause trouble.’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.

Given all that, I stand by my original statement that, in general, attacking the victim is allowed as a defense tactic.

Of course it is! Just as long as there is a legal basis for it. It can't be brought up just cause the defense wants it.

Actually, there has to be a legal basis to exclude it. The bias in a case always goes toward the defense, which is why the court theoretically looks favorably toward giving the defense latitude and reigning in the prosecution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A victim's prior bad acts is reallly seldom introduced into evidence to whether the victim committed some act or other. An exception would be if the prosecution opens the door to inquiry by character witnesses or if the defendant had personal knowledge of a victim's prior bad acts.

Eighth Circuit Considers Admissibility Of Victim's Prior Threats, Character And Reputation Evidence | Federal Evidence Review

A victim's prior sexual conduct would be called into evidentiary question if she claimed to be a virgin and there was evidence to refute that, or if the defendant had personal knowledge that she was the neighborhood open hole.

There is no question that Trayvon Martin's prior acts, no matter how bad, have no relevancy to Zimmerman's state of mind because he didn't know Martin and didn't know of his history good or bad. The only relevancy would be whether Trayvon Martin's prior acts indicated a propensity to attack others that he deemed were non threatening.

It seems that very VERY few people understand the issues in this case. First will be whether Zimmerman is entitled to immunity under stand your ground laws. If that fails, Zimmerman will still be entitled to all laws relating to self defense as everyone is, including criminals in the commision of felonies.

Then they get to the issue of whether Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Trayvon Martin.

Federal rules and state rules are different.

By the way, that decision doesn't say that the evidence cannot be admitted, just that the judge was right when he decided to exclude it, and that, even if the judge was wrong to exclude said evidence, it didn't matter. The original decision also allowed testimony that the victim had a reputation of being a violent person, without actually requiring the defendant to prove that he knew about the reputation.

In applying this standard, the trial court “correctly permitted Bordeaux to introduce reputation or opinion testimony pertinent to his self-defense claim” and the circuit commended “the district court on its thoughtful approach to these difficult evidentiary issues, and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion.” Even if the trial judge had erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s violent character, the circuit concluded this was harmless as the evidence was “cumulative character evidence” with only “a slight influence” on the trial outcome. Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1051.
The circuit cited the defendant’s testimony about “numerous prior acts and threats made by Saupitty of which Bordeaux was aware before the shooting,” as properly admitted under FRE 404(b). Specifically, that the defendant “was aware that Saupitty had previously run over someone else with a car and that Saupitty had swerved at another person with his car. He also testified that he was aware that Saupitty had pulled a gun on another person and put a gun in the person’s face. Additionally, he testified that he had heard that Saupitty had a gun and threatened to ‘do something’ to Bordeaux, that Saupitty would shoot Bordeaux if he had the chance, and that Saupitty had written a rap song ‘indicating that he was going to kill [Bordeaux].’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
In addition, the trial judge also correctly allowed “defense witnesses to testify regarding specific acts or threats that Bordeaux was aware of prior to the shooting.” This included one witness who testified that “he told Bordeaux that Saupitty ‘said [he was] going to kick [Bordeaux’s] ass and stuff.’” Another witness “testified that he told Bordeaux that Saupitty threatened to ‘bust out [Bordeaux’s] mother’s windows and that if he had a chance he would bust him up or ... beat him up....’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.
Finally, the trial judge allowed witnesses to testify about the victim’s “reputation[ ] for violence as permitted by Rules 404(a)(2) and 405(a). Specifically, defense witnesses testified that Saupitty has a reputation of being a ‘thug,’ ‘a troublemaker,’ ‘trying to be a tough guy,’ and of being someone who ‘likes to go around and cause trouble.’” Bordeaux, 570 F.3d at 1050.

Given all that, I stand by my original statement that, in general, attacking the victim is allowed as a defense tactic.

Of course it is! Just as long as there is a legal basis for it. It can't be brought up just cause the defense wants it.

Zimmerman is claiming self defense so the violent past of the supposed victim IS evidence.

 

[Ravi]

Federal rules and state rules are different.

By the way, that decision doesn't say that the evidence cannot be admitted, just that the judge was right when he decided to exclude it, and that, even if the judge was wrong to exclude said evidence, it didn't matter. The original decision also allowed testimony that the victim had a reputation of being a violent person, without actually requiring the defendant to prove that he knew about the reputation.

Given all that, I stand by my original statement that, in general, attacking the victim is allowed as a defense tactic.

Of course it is! Just as long as there is a legal basis for it. It can't be brought up just cause the defense wants it.

Zimmerman is claiming self defense so the violent past of the supposed victim IS evidence.

There is no violent past. And even if there were, Zimmerman wouldn't have known about it unless he was keeping tabs on Martin. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it is! Just as long as there is a legal basis for it. It can't be brought up just cause the defense wants it.

Zimmerman is claiming self defense so the violent past of the supposed victim IS evidence.

There is no violent past. And even if there were, Zimmerman wouldn't have known about it unless he was keeping tabs on Martin. Is that what you are claiming?

Actually, if Martin does have a violent past the defense can use that history to bolster their argument that he attacked Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman didn't know about it does not make it irrelevant.

 

[Vidi]

I linked that article in another thread, it's a great read. It shows how much a decent man's entire life can be distorted by others with a specific agenda to destroy everything decent about him and make him in to a sad cop wannabe and a racist........ fuck these assholes for attempting to destroy this man with outright lies!

Did he or did he not shoot an unarmed 17 year old dead?

George Zimmerman fucked up his own life by not following the guidelines set forth by the neighborhood watch

Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch gun rules - Orlando Sentinel

Had he followed the rules, Trayvon Martin would be alive and Zimmermans life wouldn't be fucked up.

From your article:

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

Zimmerman was under NO mandate not to carry.

Agreed, there was no mandate. But ignoring the advice of professionals, especially law enforcement leads to trouble.

I never said he broke the law by carry a weapon.

Zimmerman DID however shoot and kill an unarmed 17 year old. For that he needed to be arrested and face a judge. IF that judge decides Zimmerman should face a jury, so be it. If the judge lets him go, so be it.

I do not know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, but to let him go without ANY hearing, no. That just isn't how we do things in this country, at least not how we should. We have a process. It's not a perfect process. It sometimes gets things wrong. Most of the time, it gets it right.

 

[Synthaholic]

How exactly does this justify Zimmerman shooting Martin?

I am sorry that thread is elsewhere.....Cya...


OR

Interactive Reading Comprehension Resources for Grades 3-5

Oh, I get it. You're saying that since he has done (or it is claimed that he has done) some good things in his life then it is not possible that he is guilty of manslaughter or second-degree murder.

That's just awesome!

O.J. Simpson won the Heisman Award!

Roman Polanski has made some great movies!

I hear that Hitler was a loving pet owner!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

funny, I've defended Zimmerman because of main stream media reporting.

It's the social media and losers like people here who have misled and lied

fuck social media

 

[Vidi]

funny, I've defended Zimmerman because of main stream media reporting.

It's the social media and losers like people here who have misled and lied

fuck social media

Blaming social media instead of the user is like blaming the gun instead of the shooter.

 

[Sunshine]

funny, I've defended Zimmerman because of main stream media reporting.

It's the social media and losers like people here who have misled and lied

fuck social media

I, for one, am most happy to accept your resignation. Have a nice life.

 

[Sunshine]

Except you know the video of him being in the store,but let's not mention that or anything...

Link.

Im at work,try google

No doubt you work for the government as no private employer would allow you to wast time posting on an internet forum.

 

[Sunshine]

Link.

Im at work,try google

Here you go, from the bond hearing. Don't mind Sunshine, she thinks all blacks are thieves.

DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn't -- is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody's house or committing any type of crime sir?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes, sir.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And there's a video of that?

GILBREATH: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn't steal or anything. Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Of course, no link for this bullshit.

If this is supposed to be testimony before the Grand Jury, then you have violated the law because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be sealed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Im at work,try google

Here you go, from the bond hearing. Don't mind Sunshine, she thinks all blacks are thieves.

DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn't -- is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody's house or committing any type of crime sir?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes, sir.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And there's a video of that?

GILBREATH: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn't steal or anything. Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Of course, no link for this bullshit.

If this is supposed to be testimony before the Grand Jury, then you have violated the law because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be sealed.

None of this has anything to do with the case either. The only question worth asking is "Did Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman, knock him to the ground and break his nose?"

The answer is "I don't know".

 

[Ravi]

Im at work,try google

Here you go, from the bond hearing. Don't mind Sunshine, she thinks all blacks are thieves.

DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn't -- is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody's house or committing any type of crime sir?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes, sir.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And there's a video of that?

GILBREATH: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn't steal or anything. Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Of course, no link for this bullshit.

If this is supposed to be testimony before the Grand Jury, then you have violated the law because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be sealed.

Hey, moron? It wasn't a grand jury and it is non-copyrighted material. You are free to continue stating that Martin stole the tea and skittles because he was a black person, despite the evidence to the contrary. We all know you're a racist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

None of this has anything to do with the case either. The only question worth asking is "Did Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman, knock him to the ground and break his nose?"

The answer is "I don't know".

Technically speaking, since the correct answer is "I don't know", then the correct question would be "Who initiated the hostilities that night?"


We pretty much know that Martin knocked Zimmerman down and injured him (we have no medical confirmation his nose was broken). The person that is winning a fight, is not necessarily the person that started a fight and to prosecute a crime the state has a responsibility to first establish that a crime existed. If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman's response was not a crime. On the other hand if Zimmerman attacked Martin and the result was Martin's death, then there very well may have been a crime.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

None of this has anything to do with the case either. The only question worth asking is "Did Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman, knock him to the ground and break his nose?"

The answer is "I don't know".

Technically speaking, since the correct answer is "I don't know", then the correct question would be "Who initiated the hostilities that night?"


We pretty much know that Martin knocked Zimmerman down and injured him (we have no medical confirmation his nose was broken). The person that is winning a fight, is not necessarily the person that started a fight and to prosecute a crime the state has a responsibility to first establish that a crime existed. If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman's response was not a crime. On the other hand if Zimmerman attacked Martin and the result was Martin's death, then there very well may have been a crime.


>>>>

Assuming you are correct, and it is likely that you are. There are too many what ifs that are assumed by an uninformed public to make a decision either way.