Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I agree that Z probably walks, but this was not an accident. So there is enough evidence to try to send Z to jail, for the killing of this kid. You may not agree with the evidence and I even agree it is probably not enough, however if my son was killed walking home, I would want the DA to go after the guy that killed my kid.
It would be a more in interesting case if Martin was the one who killed Zimmerman. If the guy on top beating the guy on the ground ends up shooting the guy on the ground, self-defense might be a little harder to swallow. But even then, the fact that a gun was present in a fight between two people who don't know each other from Adam, it becomes a life or death situation for both parties. It still baffles me why anyone does not see this as a cut and dry self-defense case. This case is a waste of tax payers money and was driven by the race-baiters.
Zimmy brought the gun to this party...hence his responsibility for the outcome .It was self defense and the guy who had to defend himself is dead . I would be 100 % behind Zimmy if this whole incident happened at Zimms truck...not a hundred or so yards away. If i saw a black bear walking in the woods behind my house and decided to go looking for it armed with a rifle and it attacked me in the woods ,thats MY fault....all i would have to do was stay in my house and call the cops and let THEM handle the bear. Im not comparing Trey to a wild bear , im saying in zimms case this is the same mind set. Dont go looking for no trouble and you wont find no trouble.
Trayvon shouldn't have attacked someone he didn't know in the middle of the night in a state where it's legal to carry a firearm..
Trey shouldnt HAVE to run home if hes minding his own business ...who the hell made zimmy the man in charge of peoples freedoms to move about this earth.
He'd didn't have to run, he could have walked, he also didn't have to punch zimmerman in the nose or climb on top of him and beat him into the ground..
Ah, the snitches get stitches argument. This was a gated community. They don't allow drug dealers and thugs to roam freely at night for 40 minutes looking at houses in the rain after a rash of break-ins. That's how it stays a gated community.
Hasn't a forensic expert stated the Martin's hoodie had powder burns on it but his skin did not, pointing out the only way this happens is if the hoodie is hanging down and the shot comes from underneath; if that is testimony, it will be pretty hard for the defense to dispute multiple reports of Martin on top. Keeping your name shielded from the public, in a highly publicized case, and being "some anonymous guy" is not the same thing; some of your conclusions are just ridiculous Tim.
I think Christo has said it repeatedly in this thread, that even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation it doesn't negate that he could still be in fear for his life.
Again, this is some guy on the internet. If a forensic expert states this in trial, and if it is not contradicted by another expert from the prosecution, then you'll have something. But it's all conjecture at this point. You don't KNOW any of it. You need to stop arguing it as if you know.
Christo's argument is fun and all for an internet forum, but if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, he will be convicted.
I am not so sure of that. I guess it depends on what actually happened. Did Zimmerman grab Treyvon and try and hold him? Did he brandish the gun to play billy bad ###? Fact is we will never know.
Tim, you do understand that part of the Judge's role in court is to see that emotion is taken out of a case (as it pertains to the law), all the way up to setting aside a jury's verdict. Listening to your emotional leanings and suppositions on human nature (the jury's and the participants) is maddening; your views are exactly what the judicial system is trying to prevent in a trial.
...and can't assume them either.
Yeah I totally understand that but the defense is somehow going to have to make the jury believe that Treyvon just walked up and started pounding on Zimmy and then reached for his gun. On the surface that is pretty far fetched.
I asked the question because I did not feel like going back and locating this "expert". We don't KNOW any of it, you or I, since there has not been any breadth of testimony; is this really the point you want to make? BTW, we are all just some guy on the Internet.
Not as far-fetched as a man displaying a gun being punched in the face, is for me to believe.
I don't think its emotional at all. The problem with Christos argument in this case is that Zimmerman has already given his version of events, in which he says that Martin confronted him and not the other way around. If it somehow turns out that this did not take place, then Zimmerman will be viewed as a liar, and in all liklihood convicted.
The evidence speaks for itself, the prosecution needs to disprove the defense's self defense claim, they will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Z had a reasonable escape and failed to take it.
Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened. Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?
With SYG I am not sure that a reasonable escape is enough.
I thought i read in this thread that they weren't using SYG in their defense. Is that not the case?
Not emotional; that is all that it is. You toss away Christo's statement of factual law as if it were an opinion, then you take supposition and emotion to conclude what the jury will do; classic.
Tim. Why do you disclaim John's testimony? Its not like he came forward once this event became galvanized. His testimony was provided the following day (I believe - based on the tape I heard). He reported Martin as suspicious because he fit the description of someone who was known to have broken into a house (i.e., he profiled Martin). Why wouldn't you consider the most likely scenario as plausable/probable?
Yes, I know the are not using SYG as their defense but it is still FL law; I do not believe that Zimmerman was required to retreat even if he had a viable means to. The defense is using self-defense to portray Zimmerman as the victim, rather than the aggressor.
Why would you consider Martin initiating contact with Zimmerman as farfetched but not the other way around? I look at the guy with the bloodied nose, cuts on the back of his head and grass stains on his back as more likely to have been the recipient of the first punch. The guy on the ground is more likely to be the one who was hit first.
I agree but it is improbable to think that Trayvon punched Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had his handgun drawn. The provocation does not necessarily rule out that one could be in fear for his personal safety.
Wait, you tend to believe the guy who was contacting the police and trying to work with them over a guy who has had numerous run ins with the police over the past year? Why?
Only one of them was staying in the gated community because they had just gotten in trouble. The other one was on the phone with police while this was unfolding. But I digressed. I'm getting into circumstantial evidence that won't matter. It's just a reason why people may tend to believe GZ.
This is the defense being used, I might have worded that wrong, the prosecution needs to prove this was not the case in order to refute the justifiable use of force to overcome the self-defense immunity.pittstownkiller said:
Everyone is just some dude on the news, or on the internet or in a forum, or "anonymous guy" except for you..timschochet said:
Of course you do. But from the beginning of this story, you've been rooting for George Zimmerman. You have repeated his story as if it were Gospel, you've accepted every aspect of it as true. That's why your statements on this case lack all credibility.
If you're going to make this argument, you probably shouldn't use the word "murder." Just saying.
I am not disclaiming his testimony because he hasn't given any testimony. Let's see if he shows up and trial and what he actually says. I absolutely agree with you 100% that IF he is a credible witness and states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it will be extremely difficult for Zimmerman to be convicted. But I have a strong feeling that the testimony, if it occurs, will be nowhere near that precise.kentric said:
I didn't ignore your post. If murder has been proven, the prosecution wins. There is no self-defense argument against murder.
Is it?avoiding injuries said:
Even if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever, that wouldn't make his story any more plausible. All it would mean is that he was consistent in his lies.
