Zimmerman case analyzed.

Yurt said:
you guys do realize the state bears the burden of proof and that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

face it...all we have is speculation. supposedly there is more information that will come out at trial. claiming he is guilty or innocent at this point is beyond stupid. you idiots do a injustice to the presumption of innocence we enjoy in this country.
Click to expand...

LOL! I laugh when the people blurt out those feel good slogans like innocent till proven guilty. That is just something the wealthy and politicians like to say to protect their reputations. Though if you are charged with a crime, you are treated far from innocent.

But in GZ's case? It seems they presumed him innocent without even a trial! I guess some folks have special privileges. Especially if your daddy is an ex judge.

Had that been a black guy as the shooter? He'd be on death row.
 
KingofCats said:
you are just making stuff up, you have zero evidence to base these assertions on. I find it pathetic you have to go to such lengths to create this tangled web of lies and conjecture. How about you base your opinions on facts and evidence, rather than what you want the story to actually be? Maybe it's time you start admitting that trayvon martin acted criminally, and was the true agressor, there is far more evidence for that line.



PROVE THIS STATEMENT. The kid is an athlete, a football player, a trackstar. And a teenager. There is NO reason to suggest he's unlikely to throw the first punch. In fact, all the evidence points to it, because zimmerman was clearly hit. Is there any evidence that trayvon retained injuries relating to a fist fight?



ZERO evidence for this.



head injuries are always life threatening. And in the moment you can't be expected to do a raw calculation of your survival chances. If you are on your back being criminally assaulted, you may only have moments to make the decision to shoot the assailant.



Well that's not how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that he was definitively not in danger. Not the other way around.



Open question
Click to expand...

LOL. I like how you missed the KEY testimony. That of GZ!!!

If GZ's account is correct and TM was saying. "Ok you got it, you got it"(Meaning the gun)? That would mean TM was giving up and GZ shot him in cold blood.

Answer me this! When did TM utter these words. Before or after he was shot?
 
KingofCats said:
you are just making stuff up, you have zero evidence to base these assertions on. I find it pathetic you have to go to such lengths to create this tangled web of lies and conjecture. How about you base your opinions on facts and evidence, rather than what you want the story to actually be? Maybe it's time you start admitting that trayvon martin acted criminally, and was the true agressor, there is far more evidence for that line.



PROVE THIS STATEMENT. The kid is an athlete, a football player, a trackstar. And a teenager. There is NO reason to suggest he's unlikely to throw the first punch. In fact, all the evidence points to it, because zimmerman was clearly hit. Is there any evidence that trayvon retained injuries relating to a fist fight?



ZERO evidence for this.



head injuries are always life threatening. And in the moment you can't be expected to do a raw calculation of your survival chances. If you are on your back being criminally assaulted, you may only have moments to make the decision to shoot the assailant.



Well that's not how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that he was definitively not in danger. Not the other way around.



Open question
Click to expand...

You really perplex me, on the one hand you seem to want to judge the case based on the evidence but then throw all impartiality out the window by calling Martin a criminal based on what amounts to little more more than your subjective opinion. One thing I would like to know is why didn't he use CS or pepper spray rather than a gun? Are you going to tell me that these neighbourhood watch characters don't carry it?
 
wiseones2cents said:
LOL! I laugh when the people blurt out those feel good slogans like innocent till proven guilty. That is just something the wealthy and politicians like to say to protect their reputations. Though if you are charged with a crime, you are treated far from innocent.

But in GZ's case? It seems they presumed him innocent without even a trial! I guess some folks have special privileges. Especially if your daddy is an ex judge.

Had that been a black guy as the shooter? He'd be on death row.
Click to expand...

yawn. more wild ass speculation. i didn't say you are innocent, i said you are PRESUMED innocent. there is a difference.
 
Yurt said:
yawn. more wild ass speculation. i didn't say you are innocent, i said you are PRESUMED innocent. there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Sure you are. If you are presumed innocent? Why do they urge you to get a lawyer?Try not getting a lawyer and see how fast the courts send you down shit's creek.

You have to feed the system.
 
Rune said:
If there is so much uncertainty, why are you so convinced of Zim's inocence?

If it smells like shit, and looks like shit, and tastes like shit, it is likely shit.

Now, why don't you come over here and shut me up?
Click to expand...

Probably because he don't want to actually touch a pile of shit...
 
wiseones2cents said:
LOL! I laugh when the people blurt out those feel good slogans like innocent till proven guilty. That is just something the wealthy and politicians like to say to protect their reputations. Though if you are charged with a crime, you are treated far from innocent.

But in GZ's case? It seems they presumed him innocent without even a trial! I guess some folks have special privileges. Especially if your daddy is an ex judge.

Had that been a black guy as the shooter? He'd be on death row.
Click to expand...

Because the obvious evidence of busted lips, a broken nose, 2 black eyes, bleeding wounds on the back of the head all agreed with being
attacked and fighting for your life.....pretty simple logic and no wild speculation.....
 
wiseones2cents said:
LOL. I like how you missed the KEY testimony. That of GZ!!!

If GZ's account is correct and TM was saying. "Ok you got it, you got it"(Meaning the gun)? That would mean TM was giving up and GZ shot him in cold blood.

Answer me this! When did TM utter these words. Before or after he was shot?
Click to expand...

more speculation ?
 
bravo said:
Because the obvious evidence of busted lips, a broken nose, 2 black eyes, bleeding wounds on the back of the head all agreed with being
attacked and fighting for your life.....pretty simple logic and no wild speculation.....
Click to expand...

Sorry but I did not see any evidence of a busted lip, nor black eyes on the night of question. The black eyes were apparently as a result of the swollen nose the previous day. Therefore he had a very minor nose fracture(AT THE MOST) and some scrapes on the back of his head. Those are not life threatening wounds. I'd say it was a minor tussle. Therefore you are simply exaggerating.
 
bravo said:
Because the obvious evidence of busted lips, a broken nose, 2 black eyes, bleeding wounds on the back of the head all agreed with being
attacked and fighting for your life.....pretty simple logic and no wild speculation.....
Click to expand...

How the hell do you know that? So there was a fight, does that mean that every fight will end in someone dead? You are right about it being simple though, you don't do complex!
 
wiseones2cents said:
Oh ok. I'm on the phone with my GF and have a bag or can of pop on the other hand and I drop both things and start a fight? Is that really your story you'd present to the judge? If you recall, the initial altercation according to the account by TM's gf is that there was pushing involved. That would be pretty difficult for TM if his hands were full.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't present ANY story to the jury. Just the plain facts that zimmerman was the one with injuries. all the rest is hearsay.
 
KingofCats said:
No it's not. you have zero evidence to back up this assertion. How many others had zimmerman tried to apprehend in the past did he lunge at? It's much more probable that the criminal trayvon attacked someone who wasn't committing a crime. We have actual evidence for that, unlike your baseless assertion.


He could have easily dropped the bag. Especially when you get into a criminal rage. Was the bag still in his cold dead hands? I don't think so.



Doesn't fit the story. Zimmerman had gashes on the back of his head. He was clearly on his back. He was clearly being criminally assaulted.



Yes it does, especially in florida. But I am glad we are getting down to the real meat of this whole zimmerman ideal. Ive said it before, liberals and trayvon defenders don't believe in the right of self defense. One could be being criminally assaulted, on their back, suffering head injuries, and they are expected to take it.



Please demonstate the evidence you have that one criminally assaulting another is highly unlikely to go for a gun. Frankly I think if you are capable of jumping a man in the street, you most definitely are capable for going for their gun. You have zero evidence to back up your assertion. Zero.


Clearly he found an opening, while the criminal trayvon was focusing on his head giving him black eyes.



Guns are probably more easily retrievable for the person carrying the gun.



I agree, if only the criminal trayvon did not jump zimmerman and physically assault zimmerman (who was not doing a crime by following him), this altercation would never have happend.



Being on the ground, on your back, and suffering head injuries is more than enough justification to shoot someone that is criminally assaulting you.



It could very well be true. I love how you invent all this conjecture for trayvon but you immediately dismiss anything the zimmerman camp says.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in knowing if the gunshot is recorded on Martin's phone and if so, how long was it after he confronted and then assaulted Zimmerman.
 
wiseones2cents said:
LOL. I like how you missed the KEY testimony. That of GZ!!!

If GZ's account is correct and TM was saying. "Ok you got it, you got it"(Meaning the gun)? That would mean TM was giving up and GZ shot him in cold blood.

Answer me this! When did TM utter these words. Before or after he was shot?
Click to expand...
Where's your proof that the comment meant the gun.
I had a friend that got in a fight with a guy and as he was hitting him, he was telling him "You got it".
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You really perplex me, on the one hand you seem to want to judge the case based on the evidence but then throw all impartiality out the window by calling Martin a criminal based on what amounts to little more more than your subjective opinion. One thing I would like to know is why didn't he use CS or pepper spray rather than a gun? Are you going to tell me that these neighbourhood watch characters don't carry it?
Click to expand...

Are you speculating now, or do you have a basis for your question?
 
wiseones2cents said:
Really?Is it legal to stalk someone in Florida? Is it justified if the shooter starts the altercation and then gets his butt kicked? Some how I can see much abuse to your beliefs. I'll just carry a gun and provoke someone. As soon as they harm me I shoot them dead!
Click to expand...

I ignored most of your reply because again it's just conjecture that I can easily refute, but I would like to take this opportunity to point out that zimmerman has not been charged with stalking. Because, well, he wasn't doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top