Zimmerman case

wiseones2cents

Verified User
Been following the case and listening to the "expert" witnesses and all I have to say is that the defense witnesses are full of shit!! You can rip a man's heart out and he can still talk?LOL The other guy makes GZ seem like a weak fat slob and TM an athlete?? GZ was training, had lost lots of weight, was in top physical form, was practicing grappling(by his own admission), and could have easily used those skills to regain the upper hand(had he ever lost it).

The facts are this. Trayvon Martin did not do anything wrong. Was pursued by a vigilante type neighbourhood watch man, that has been known to racially profile black youths as young as 7!LOL Not only is this a known fact(I can supply links) Neighbours also complained about GZ's "aggressive tactics". GZ also has a history of using violence.

It's on record GZ was pursuing TM aggressively, saying "these assholes always get away". It's on record that TM tried to avoid confrontation by sprinting away from the man.

By TM's girlfriend's account, GZ was breathing heavily at the meeting, suggesting GZ was in hot pursuit.

There obviously was a fight. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant, it is clear GZ was the aggressor. I wouldn't take too kindly to someone I dont know following me around at night! Still, TM is on the phone when he allegedly threw the first punch(which I find odd). He stated why are you following me? GZ responsded what are you doing around here and may have tried to grab him so this "asshole" doesn't get away. There was a fight.

TM is kicking the snot out of GZ. He had no reason to reach for the gun. But GZ did........I don't buy that crap about "your going to die".

It's a joke that the main witness GZ is not taking the stand. He has atleast 5 different versions of the event. This is why all legal analysts are stating he should not take the stand! They know he will get tripped up! If he doesn't take the stand then his account of events should be thrown out because it will obviously be biased!

GZ whose head is "exploding" and "falling in and out of consciousness. " Is not able to regain the upper hand for 30 seconds, but yet is able to over power a guy that is on top that has leverage and shoot him square in the chest??? And to boot he sits back and says "you got me" after taking a point blank shot with a 9mm to the heart!! WHAT A FUCKEN JOKE!!!!!!

Maybe he used HIS(GZ's) MMA training to gain the upper hand and shot him on top!

Also know that one key witness that heard the shots, ran outside IMMEDIATELY and seen GZ on top straddling a dead TM. He was asked 3 times what was going on, before he can think of an appropriate thing to say that would not incriminate him.

Go to 18 Minutes and listen. This is an honest witness with no biased!


Bottom line? GZ had no business following TM. He initiated the confrontation. GZ was NOT in a life threatening situation. He may have received a punch in the melee. He may have banged or scraped his head. But his life was not in danger. TM was kicking his ass and would not reach for the gun unless GZ reached for it first.

Death by negligence at the very least!
 
Last edited:
Admittedly I have not followed this case closely, but from what I have read and seen, I don't see how, if they follow the law, how Zimmerman gets convicted.

Now, plenty of juries do not follow the law and they may simply do what they believe is right and convict anyway.

The problem is in the law, you have no duty to retreat if possible before using deadly force, and you can meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Personally the law is too permissive in my opinion. If you are going to use deadly force on someone, you should only do so in the face of deadly force and if you cant otherwise escape the threat.
 
The witnesses are all a bunch of baloney! And CLEARLY biased. The experts are paid to be biased! The court should concentrate on the initial reports. Especially the facts that can't be denied. Their backgrounds(Good for the prosecutor), the numerous video recordings(show GZ as the aggressor and TM trying to avoid confrontation). Then after the confrontation he screams like a bitch if that was infact him.

This case would have not been such a big deal if he had been charged like normal. The cops botched this up from day one, thanks to GZ's dad's buddy, the state attorney who refused to charge Zimmerman on the night of the crime. If it were a black guy that had killed the white guy he would probably be on death row by now.....
 
Admittedly I have not followed this case closely, but from what I have read and seen, I don't see how, if they follow the law, how Zimmerman gets convicted.

Now, plenty of juries do not follow the law and they may simply do what they believe is right and convict anyway.

The problem is in the law, you have no duty to retreat if possible before using deadly force, and you can meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Personally the law is too permissive in my opinion. If you are going to use deadly force on someone, you should only do so in the face of deadly force and if you cant otherwise escape the threat.

That's not what I heard. You must exhaust all other options and feel your life is in imminent danger to pull the trigger. Can you imagine everyone getting into street fights and killing their opponents because they THOUGHT their life was in danger?

I think that both GZ and TM's girlfriend should take a lie detector for me to be fully satisfied. They are the MAIN witnesses to the initial altercation.
 
Admittedly I have not followed this case closely, but from what I have read and seen, I don't see how, if they follow the law, how Zimmerman gets convicted.

Now, plenty of juries do not follow the law and they may simply do what they believe is right and convict anyway.

The problem is in the law, you have no duty to retreat if possible before using deadly force, and you can meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Personally the law is too permissive in my opinion. If you are going to use deadly force on someone, you should only do so in the face of deadly force and if you cant otherwise escape the threat.

Under the circumstances he was obligated to attempt to escape. Florida statute 776.041.

You can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. To me, that means you can only use deadly force to meet potentially deadly force.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I was thinking about it and this is another scenario...... GZ is in pursuit of TM. Trayvon tries to get away. GZ catches up. GZ tries to grab TM so another "asshole" doesn't get away. A fight starts. GZ is punched in the nose/mouth during the fight. Either on his feet or on the ground. Scraps or bangs his head. GZ uses his MMA training to try to get on top of TM. As he is on top, TM is trying to get free so GZ is screaming for help(ON TOP)!! He is unable to restrain TM and is scared shitless, so he pulls out the gun and shoots trayvon. Trayvon could have been trying to get up and that can explain the space between the skin and clothing(if you actual believe that joke of an expert).

Again. Note right after the shots were fired. one witness with no biased ran outside and seen GZ ON TOP straddling a dead TM. You shoot someone get out from underneath him and then mount a dead body???? NOT!!

I'd like to add that most witnesses seen GZ on top. Only John Good(the liar) stated he seen TM on top throwing MMA style punches. Who would be more likely to throw the MMA style punches? GZ who has MMA training or TM? Later he retracted his statement that he didn't actual see punches thrown which is more in line with the injuries. That ruins his entire testimony.
 
That's not what I heard. You must exhaust all other options and feel your life is in imminent danger to pull the trigger. Can you imagine everyone getting into street fights and killing their opponents because they THOUGHT their life was in danger?

I think that both GZ and TM's girlfriend should take a lie detector for me to be fully satisfied. They are the MAIN witnesses to the initial altercation.

Lie detectors are complete bullshit. Let's ask Sylvia Browne for clues instead.
 
That's not what I heard. You must exhaust all other options and feel your life is in imminent danger to pull the trigger. Can you imagine everyone getting into street fights and killing their opponents because they THOUGHT their life was in danger?

I think that both GZ and TM's girlfriend should take a lie detector for me to be fully satisfied. They are the MAIN witnesses to the initial altercation.

you are quite wrong on the laws of self defense in Florida. There is no duty to retreat.
 
you are quite wrong on the laws of self defense in Florida. There is no duty to retreat.

Then I can go to Florida. Start a fight in an alley. Say he tried to kill me with a rock so I took the rock from him and cracked his head open. Its perfect. You kill the only witness. There'd be a lot of free murderers walking around.
 
Then I can go to Florida. Start a fight in an alley. Say he tried to kill me with a rock so I took the rock from him and cracked his head open. Its perfect. You kill the only witness. There'd be a lot of free murderers walking around.
again, you are still extremely wrong on the laws of self defense. I suggest you read them completely before leaping to hyperbolic conjecture.
 
you are quite wrong on the laws of self defense in Florida. There is no duty to retreat.

Because Zimmerman provoked Trayvon he did have a duty to attempt to escape.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
 
Last edited:
Because Zimmerman provoked Trayvon he did have a duty to attempt to escape.

76.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Thank you.

Also I heard no impediment of GZ's voice even though he is "supposedly" underneath being bombarded with punches.
 
Because Zimmerman provoked Trayvon he did have a duty to attempt to escape.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
now follow up on case law as to what constitutions provocation. following someone is not provocation, according to the law.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I was thinking about it and this is another scenario...... GZ is in pursuit of TM. Trayvon tries to get away. GZ catches up. GZ tries to grab TM so another "asshole" doesn't get away. A fight starts. GZ is punched in the nose/mouth during the fight. Either on his feet or on the ground. Scraps or bangs his head. GZ uses his MMA training to try to get on top of TM. As he is on top, TM is trying to get free so GZ is screaming for help(ON TOP)!! He is unable to restrain TM and is scared shitless, so he pulls out the gun and shoots trayvon. Trayvon could have been trying to get up and that can explain the space between the skin and clothing(if you actual believe that joke of an expert).

Again. Note right after the shots were fired. one witness with no biased ran outside and seen GZ ON TOP straddling a dead TM. You shoot someone get out from underneath him and then mount a dead body???? NOT!!

I'd like to add that most witnesses seen GZ on top. Only John Good(the liar) stated he seen TM on top throwing MMA style punches. Who would be more likely to throw the MMA style punches? GZ who has MMA training or TM? Later he retracted his statement that he didn't actual see punches thrown which is more in line with the injuries. That ruins his entire testimony.
 
Admittedly I have not followed this case closely, but from what I have read and seen, I don't see how, if they follow the law, how Zimmerman gets convicted.

Now, plenty of juries do not follow the law and they may simply do what they believe is right and convict anyway.

The problem is in the law, you have no duty to retreat if possible before using deadly force, and you can meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Personally the law is too permissive in my opinion. If you are going to use deadly force on someone, you should only do so in the face of deadly force and if you cant otherwise escape the threat.

WOW what a scary post. I am stunned.
 
Back
Top