Case closed, Zimmerman's a gonner

[dilloduck]

This case was over before Zimmerman was arrested.

Zimmerman is going to walk...

The only testimony about the actual incident is going to come from Zimmerman.

And that's the whole case...everything else is irrelevant.

"Martin attacked me, I was in fear for my life, I shot him once in self defense."


And the defenders say "but...but...but...Zimmerman followed Martin..."

So what?

It's not illegal to follow someone.

If Martin was in fear...why didn't he call the police?

He had a cell phone...he was on it talking to his girlfriend.

Instead, as Zimmerman will tell it on the stand...Martin ambushed him and attacked him.

And there is no evidence that this is not a true statement.

Case closed, let's all go home.

And we have to hope the jury has the balls to agree . Might be tough with an all woman jury.

Do I have to go over the whole affirmative defense thing with you people again?

sure----let's hear how petrified baby Martin was.

 

[Mr. H.]

Where's Adrian Monk when you really need him?

 

[Cuyo]

And we have to hope the jury has the balls to agree . Might be tough with an all woman jury.

Do I have to go over the whole affirmative defense thing with you people again?

sure----let's hear how petrified baby Martin was.

Actually it has nothing to do with how petrified "baby Martin" was or wasn't. It deals with the burden of proof.

 

[S.J.]

Political trials like this aren't always decided on facts. The jury may very well find him guilty, just to avoid feeling responsible for the riots we all know will happen if he is acquitted. Too bad the justice system is held hostage to racial politics.

 

[Esmeralda]

What, are not the Mexicans going to riot if he is convicted?

He's not Mexican.

 

[Esmeralda]

We're not talking about "probable cause"... We are talking about "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The prosecutor has not made his case - yet. The Defense Theory is self defense, time will tell who prevails and that is when "Reasonable Doubt" comes into play and six women decide the fate of GZ.

Consider these points:

1. GZ was out and about and legally carrying a deadly weapon. We don't know what his mindset was on that day, what we know is he discharged his weapon and killed an unarmed teenager.

2. TM was legally out and about and purchased an ice tea and candy. He was unarmed and we don't know what his mindset was that day.

3. At some point GZ and TM met, engaged in mutual combat and GZ drew his gun and killed TM.

4. We know GZ had contacted the police agency and reported suspicious activity. We know he was told not to engage the 'suspect'.

5, We know the deceased cannot give his version of the events which lead to his death.

"suspicious activity" in this case is a young black man walking down the street after returning from making a purchase at a local business. Thats Treyvon's crime. kgrill says it warrants his being killed but she's a good christian doncha' know? In her own mind maybe

Yep, he deserved to die because he was a black kid, wearing a hoodie, walking by himself after dark in an area where there weren't any other people, and is a pot smoking teenager who was suspended from school. Let's just round up all such kids, stand them before a big deep ditch and shoot them down. Why the hell not? That's what a lot of good Christians have done in the past when they wanted to get rid of a certain people they didn't like.

 

[25Caliber]

There is no conclusive evidence his head was bashed on the ground or his nose was broken.

According to the medical report he had a bone fracture in his nose...he also received two black eyes from the punch to the nose.

The pictures of the back of his head were taken just 3 minutes after the incident by the neighbor who also called 911, so unless GZ caused his own injuries, then I think its pretty safe to assume GZs story to be correct here.

The point isnt whether the injuries were there or who caused them, the question is who was acting in self defense? It could be argued that Trayvon was, because when asked "whats the problem", Mr Z reached for something on his right side. As it turns out the only thing to reach for on Mr Zs right side was his gun. I would be arguing that if I were the prosecution.

ABC reported the a doctor report that Zimmerman said his nose was broken but there was never any x-rays taken and Zimmerman refused medical treatment at the scene.
And a small injury to the back of his head does not mean Martin was bashing his head on the ground.

Personally, Im looking at both sides...but the pictures clearly show 2 rather deep gashes that were bleeding pretty bad. You can call them small if you want, but I doubt the jury will agree. Again, its not the point the prosecution should be making...they should be making the case that trayvon was the one defending himself and that he was doing what he could to prevent Mr Z from grabbing his gun.

These are Mr Zs own words. If people would stop trying to relying on racism to win, then they might try to use a little logic and use Zimmermans own words against him. A good prosecutor could do this. A family and their attorney continuing to beat that point home instead of racial profiling a hoodie might find a little more support from those they ignorantly call racists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the cops even told him "do not follow him, just let us know where he is" & GZ apparently disregarded the cops because he wanted to play Hero.

I'd say manslaughter & at least 2 yrs prison, if not more.

It doesn't matter what the cops told him, the bottom line is that Travon attacked him and he has the right to defend himself.

Not really and not with a gun. Zimmerman did everything wrong. He had no right to follow Martin and had no authority to do anything at all. The Wife is doing her CCW right now. Zimmerman is used in her class as an example of what NOT to do in any situation. It was the same when I did my CCW in Texas. All three instructors pointed to this case as a perfect example of how to get your ass locked up for lots of years.

He had no right to follow Martin

No right? LOL!
This is America, you can follow people.
Even if they're a black yute.

 

[Polk]

This case was over before Zimmerman was arrested.

Zimmerman is going to walk...

The only testimony about the actual incident is going to come from Zimmerman.

And that's the whole case...everything else is irrelevant.

"Martin attacked me, I was in fear for my life, I shot him once in self defense."


And the defenders say "but...but...but...Zimmerman followed Martin..."

So what?

It's not illegal to follow someone.

If Martin was in fear...why didn't he call the police?

He had a cell phone...he was on it talking to his girlfriend.

Instead, as Zimmerman will tell it on the stand...Martin ambushed him and attacked him.

And there is no evidence that this is not a true statement.

Case closed, let's all go home.

The burden isn't on the state to prove Zimmerman's claims aren't true. The burden is on Zimmerman to prove they are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Political trials like this aren't always decided on facts. The jury may very well find him guilty, just to avoid feeling responsible for the riots we all know will happen if he is acquitted. Too bad the justice system is held hostage to racial politics.

Q. Why is this a "Political Trail"?

A. Because Race remains an issue; because GZ would never have thought a white kid minding his own business was a threat; cause racists have already excused the behavior of the killing of a teenager, because he was black he deserved it; because racists believe the criminal justice system always excuses the behavior of black men and boys, that's why so few are incarcerated, and because no matter how often racists deny they are racist their posts belie their denials.

GZ, an adult, shot and killed TM, a teenager. GZ was armed with a deadly weapon, TM was unarmed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

his abrasions are immaterial. What is material is that he stalked that unarmed young man and we know the rest of the story.

What is material is that he stalked

Stalked? LOL!

 

[S.J.]

Q. Why is this a "Political Trail"?

A. Because our racially motivated president had to insert himself (once again) into an issue he knew nothing about, other than it involved a black person. He's no better than Al Sharpton.

 

[Polk]

his abrasions are immaterial. What is material is that he stalked that unarmed young man and we know the rest of the story.

What is material is that he stalked

Stalked? LOL!

Fair. Stalk implies stealth.

 

[Esmeralda]

Even if Zimmerman did "provoke" Treyvon, how does that justify bashing his head against the ground and breaking his now? Unless Zimmerman physically attacked Treyvon, there is no legal justification for any violence on his part.

Case closed.

There is no conclusive evidence his head was bashed on the ground or his nose was broken.

The point isnt whether the injuries were there or who caused them, the question is who was acting in self defense? It could be argued that Trayvon was, because when asked "whats the problem", Mr Z reached for something on his right side. As it turns out the only thing to reach for on Mr Zs right side was his gun. I would be arguing that if I were the prosecution.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Trayvon Martin had A LEGAL RIGHT to defend himself (not using deadly force) if he had reason to believe Zimmerman was about to attack him. He had every reason to believe Zimmerman meant to attack him. Zimmerman was following him in dark, deserted place. When Martin ran, Zimmerman ran after him. Martin had every right to turn on Zimmerman and use force against him. Martin had no idea who this guy was, not that he was neighborhood watch, nothing except some wierdo was following him and meant to do him harm.

Zimmerman had a right to defend himself if attacked, but NOT TO USE DEADLY FORCE. His life was not in imminent danger. He knew the police were minutes away. He knew he had a gun, he was not being so beaten, if at all, that he needed to kill someone to save his life. Matrtin's body was found several feet away from the concrete path: Zimmerman's head was not being banged against that path when he shot Martin: Martin's body was too far away from the path. Also, there was not a drop of Martin's blood anywhere on Zimmerman.

I do hope the jury will realizes this. As a woman, if I were in Martin's position, with someone following and then chasing me in a dark, deserted place, who ran after me when I started to run away, if I were capable, I would turn and attack that man. Of course I would. Anyone would. And in Florida, if not everywhere, I would have a right to if I thought I was at risk of being attacked. And Martin had every reason to believe he was.

Zimmerman was not in fear of imminent death. A fist fight with a teenager does not cause anyone on Earth to think they are about to be killed.

 

[S.J.]

There is no conclusive evidence his head was bashed on the ground or his nose was broken.

The point isnt whether the injuries were there or who caused them, the question is who was acting in self defense? It could be argued that Trayvon was, because when asked "whats the problem", Mr Z reached for something on his right side. As it turns out the only thing to reach for on Mr Zs right side was his gun. I would be arguing that if I were the prosecution.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Trayvon Martin had A LEGAL RIGHT to defend himself (not using deadly force) if he had reason to believed Zimmerman was about to attack him. He had every reason to believe Zimmerman meant to attack him. Zimmerman was following him in dark, deserted place. When Martin ran, Zimmerman ran after him. Martin had every right to turn on Zimmerman and use force against him. Martin had no idea who this guy was, not that he was neighborhood watch, nothing except some wierdo was following him and meant to do him harm.

Zimmerman had a right to defend himself if attacked, but NOT TO USE DEADLY FORCE. His life was not in imminent danger. He knew the police were minutes away. He know he had a gun, he was not being so beaten, if at all, that he needed to kill someone to save his life.

I do hope the jury will realize this. As a woman, if I were in Martin's position, with someone following and then chasing me in a dark, deserted place, who ran after me when i started to run away, if I were capable, I would turn and attack that man. Of course I would. Anyone would. And in Florida, if not everywhere, I would have a right to if I thought I was at risk to be attacked. And Martin had every reason to believe he was.

Gawd, you're an idiot!

 

[jasonnfree]

There is no conclusive evidence his head was bashed on the ground or his nose was broken.

The point isnt whether the injuries were there or who caused them, the question is who was acting in self defense? It could be argued that Trayvon was, because when asked "whats the problem", Mr Z reached for something on his right side. As it turns out the only thing to reach for on Mr Zs right side was his gun. I would be arguing that if I were the prosecution.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Trayvon Martin had A LEGAL RIGHT to defend himself (not using deadly force) if he had reason to believed Zimmerman was about to attack him. He had every reason to believe Zimmerman meant to attack him. Zimmerman was following him in dark, deserted place. When Martin ran, Zimmerman ran after him. Martin had every right to turn on Zimmerman and use force against him. Martin had no idea who this guy was, not that he was neighborhood watch, nothing except some wierdo was following him and meant to do him harm.

Zimmerman had a right to defend himself if attacked, but NOT TO USE DEADLY FORCE. His life was not in imminent danger. He knew the police were minutes away. He know he had a gun, he was not being so beaten, if at all, that he needed to kill someone to save his life.

I do hope the jury will realize this. As a woman, if I were in Martin's position, with someone following and then chasing me in a dark, deserted place, who ran after me when i started to run away, if I were capable, I would turn and attack that man. Of course I would. Anyone would. And in Florida, if not everywhere, I would have a right to if I thought I was at risk to be attacked. And Martin had every reason to believe he was.

GZ is also on record on the 9-11 call being told by the operator not to follow the suspect. This guy is a vigilante. If he had been minding his own business that day he'd be free today and the kid would be alive.

 

[Missourian]

This case was over before Zimmerman was arrested.

Zimmerman is going to walk...

The only testimony about the actual incident is going to come from Zimmerman.

And that's the whole case...everything else is irrelevant.

"Martin attacked me, I was in fear for my life, I shot him once in self defense."


And the defenders say "but...but...but...Zimmerman followed Martin..."

So what?

It's not illegal to follow someone.

If Martin was in fear...why didn't he call the police?

He had a cell phone...he was on it talking to his girlfriend.

Instead, as Zimmerman will tell it on the stand...Martin ambushed him and attacked him.

And there is no evidence that this is not a true statement.

Case closed, let's all go home.

The burden isn't on the state to prove Zimmerman's claims aren't true. The burden is on Zimmerman to prove they are.

He has the proof, he was attacked, he has the injuries, witness #6 says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "raining down blows like MMA".

The prosecution cannot refute Zimmerman's testimony...there are no witnesses to the initial confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin except Zimmerman.

If the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman testimony is false, and they cannot, it's over.

 

[Esmeralda]

The point isnt whether the injuries were there or who caused them, the question is who was acting in self defense? It could be argued that Trayvon was, because when asked "whats the problem", Mr Z reached for something on his right side. As it turns out the only thing to reach for on Mr Zs right side was his gun. I would be arguing that if I were the prosecution.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Trayvon Martin had A LEGAL RIGHT to defend himself (not using deadly force) if he had reason to believed Zimmerman was about to attack him. He had every reason to believe Zimmerman meant to attack him. Zimmerman was following him in dark, deserted place. When Martin ran, Zimmerman ran after him. Martin had every right to turn on Zimmerman and use force against him. Martin had no idea who this guy was, not that he was neighborhood watch, nothing except some wierdo was following him and meant to do him harm.

Zimmerman had a right to defend himself if attacked, but NOT TO USE DEADLY FORCE. His life was not in imminent danger. He knew the police were minutes away. He know he had a gun, he was not being so beaten, if at all, that he needed to kill someone to save his life.

I do hope the jury will realize this. As a woman, if I were in Martin's position, with someone following and then chasing me in a dark, deserted place, who ran after me when i started to run away, if I were capable, I would turn and attack that man. Of course I would. Anyone would. And in Florida, if not everywhere, I would have a right to if I thought I was at risk to be attacked. And Martin had every reason to believe he was.

GZ is also on record on the 9-11 call being told by the operator not to follow the suspect. This guy is a vigilante. If he had been minding his own business that day he'd be free today and the kid would be alive.

In order to convict Zimmerman, the jury will have to believe he had a right to use deadly force, which would mean his life was in imminent danger. It wasn't. A fractured nose, a black eye, some scrapes on the back of his head, plus the fact Martin was not on top of him when he was shot: and knowing that the police were going to be there within moments, he was not justified in using deadly force. The law, as it is written, is actually more in favor of Trayvon, not Zimmerman.

 

[25Caliber]

This case was over before Zimmerman was arrested.

Zimmerman is going to walk...

The only testimony about the actual incident is going to come from Zimmerman.

And that's the whole case...everything else is irrelevant.

"Martin attacked me, I was in fear for my life, I shot him once in self defense."


And the defenders say "but...but...but...Zimmerman followed Martin..."

So what?

It's not illegal to follow someone.

If Martin was in fear...why didn't he call the police?

He had a cell phone...he was on it talking to his girlfriend.

Instead, as Zimmerman will tell it on the stand...Martin ambushed him and attacked him.

And there is no evidence that this is not a true statement.

Case closed, let's all go home.

The burden isn't on the state to prove Zimmerman's claims aren't true. The burden is on Zimmerman to prove they are.

Incorrect. Zimmerman is claiming self defense acting within his legal limits according to Florida state law. The burden is on the state to prove that it wasnt if they want a conviction.

 

[Zona]

Lol that line again.

Trayvon Martin was physically stronger than Zimmerman. Tell me you don't believe Martin let that stop him from beating the life out of Mr. Zimmerman.

Serious question. Do you have PROOF that martin was stronger than Zimmerman? If not, just ******* stop.

What do we know, really?

Martin was bigger than Zimmerman. Martin was a trained fighter. Those things we do know. We keep seeing pictures of a 12 year old child, that picture doesn't even come close to depicting what Trayvon Martin looked like at 17.

Trained fighter? He was a trained fighter? If annivthing zimmermn should HAVE known how to Fight since he was a watch cop wanna be.