Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Mark Davis]

This thread is so painful to read. Guys, if there were facts to allege that Zimmerman conspired to commit perjury they'd certainly be charged. In his conversation with his wife he is talking about the approach they are taking to pay the 150 - specifically whether to post in full or pay to a bondman. I definitely agree the judges comment in his order hurts, especially if this is his potential sentencing judge, but whether the judge believes the defendant doesn't fully respect the law is irrelevant to the trial.

How dare you interject reason into a case that has been polarized to political talking points!

 

[fatness]

George Michael Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean in November 2007 in Daytona Beach, according to public records. He was 24. She was 20 and a cosmetologist who specialized in facials.

Big target. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-13/news/os-shellie-zimmerman-profile-20120613_1_therealgeorgezimmerman-com-family-finances-george-zimmerman

 

[fatness]

Those phone transcripts suggest that George Zimmerman opposed using the money raised through his web site to pay for his bond. During one call, George Zimmerman asks, “In my account, do I have at least $100?” — meaning $100,000, according to prosecutors. When Shellie Zimmerman answered, “no,” George asked, “How close am I?” He was told by Shellie, “There’s like $8. $8.60.”

“So total everything how much are we looking at?”

“Um, like $155,” Shellie Zimmerman said.

George Zimmerman then appeared to instruct his wife about what to do with the money in relation to his bond. “If the bond is $50, pay the 15,” he told her. “If it’s more than 15, just pay 10 percent to the bondsman.”

“You don’t want me to pay $100?,” Shellie Zimmerman asked.

“Hell no,” George replied.

Shellie Zimmerman seemed to push back, asking her husband to “just think about it,” adding, “that’s what it’s for.”

The Zimmermans during their phone conversations also discussed Shellie Zimmerman wanting to take out more cash, to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,” and George’s worry that it wasn’t safe for her to walk around with too much. “I feel safer with the gift cards,” he told her.

The credit union records also showed that more than $47,000 from the PayPal account was transferred to a bank account belonging to George Zimmerman’s sister. The phone transcripts also reveal that George Zimmerman instructed his wife to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

link

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Hustler you look like an absolute fool right about now.

The irony of that statement is You know this info above has been out for a couple days now right?

Apparently some idiot missed it.

No, I'm asking you why you think they tried to deceive the court.. What was their motive..

That article doesn't show the motive.

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

 

[fatness]

My position is not Pro-Zimmerman

If you were any more pro-Zimmerman you'd be a suppository.

 

[fatness]

George and Shellie Zimmerman talked about the money several times on a recorded phone line at the Seminole County Jail, according to court records.

He talked her through how to transfer it and directed her to pay off their bills, records show.

link

 

[Christo]

George and Shellie Zimmerman talked about the money several times on a recorded phone line at the Seminole County Jail, according to court records.

He talked her through how to transfer it and directed her to pay off their bills, records show.

link

So he told her what to do with his money. That *******!

 

[TexanFan02]

My position is not Pro-Zimmerman

If you were any more pro-Zimmerman you'd be a suppository.

 

[TexanFan02]

George and Shellie Zimmerman talked about the money several times on a recorded phone line at the Seminole County Jail, according to court records.

He talked her through how to transfer it and directed her to pay off their bills, records show.

link

So he told her what to do with his money. That *******!

Yeah. Too bad he didn't tell his lawyer about it, and let him file a motion saying Zimmerman was broke. But that's passive deception, so we'll let that slide.

 

[timschochet]

My position is not Pro-Zimmerman

If you were any more pro-Zimmerman you'd be a suppository.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash or keep it liquid. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

George and Shellie Zimmerman talked about the money several times on a recorded phone line at the Seminole County Jail, according to court records.

He talked her through how to transfer it and directed her to pay off their bills, records show.

link

And? make a point?

 

[pantherclub]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

I'm pretty sure that if you add nothing to the thread, and you're only here to taunt/troll, You can be banned..I'd say either join the discussion, or F-off...

 

[Charlie Frown]

George Michael Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean in November 2007 in Daytona Beach, according to public records. He was 24. She was 20 and a cosmetologist who specialized in facials.

Big target. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-13/news/os-shellie-zimmerman-profile-20120613_1_therealgeorgezimmerman-com-family-finances-george-zimmerman

Sounds hot. That bumps her up a couple of points on the scale.

 

[mad sweeney]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

I'm pretty sure that if you add nothing to the thread, and you're only here to taunt/troll, You can be banned..I'd say either join the discussion, or F-off...

The funniest part is that you actually think you're adding to the discussion.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

I'm pretty sure that if you add nothing to the thread, and you're only here to taunt/troll, You can be banned..I'd say either join the discussion, or F-off...

The funniest part is that you actually think you're adding to the discussion.

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

 

[timschochet]

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

This is wrong. In taunting you, pantherclub has offered more value to the discussion than you have. One post that makes fun of you is worth more, in terms of this discussion, than 500 posts from you in which you restate over and over your insipid arguments.

 

[Witz]

Might as well shut this thread down.

 

[timschochet]

Might as well shut this thread down.

Why? It's just starting to get good.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

This is wrong. In taunting you, pantherclub has offered more value to the discussion than you have. One post that makes fun of you is worth more, in terms of this discussion, than 500 posts from you in which you restate over and over your insipid arguments.

Like you've done numerous times in this thread..?For the last 3rd of the thread you've been harping on credibility.. "How can he be credible".. "Liar".. For the first 3rd in was "Institutionalized racism" and anecdotes..

Grow up, I don't agree with you on a lot of things obviously.. Me not agreeing with you shouldn't send you into a childish tailspin..

We actually had some good dialogue between posters in here until I disagreed with you about Iran/Israel.. Now you pretty much refuse to enter a discussion..

 

[pantherclub]

Might as well shut this thread down.

Why? It's just starting to get good.

starting?

 

[jon_mx]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

And as bad as some of his posts are, they don't even come close to the pure horrid posting from some of those in the pro-Martin camp.

 

[timschochet]

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

This is wrong. In taunting you, pantherclub has offered more value to the discussion than you have. One post that makes fun of you is worth more, in terms of this discussion, than 500 posts from you in which you restate over and over your insipid arguments.

Like you've done numerous times in this thread..?For the last 3rd of the thread you've been harping on credibility.. "How can he be credible".. "Liar".. For the first 3rd in was "Institutionalized racism" and anecdotes..

Grow up, I don't agree with you on a lot of things obviously.. Me not agreeing with you shouldn't send you into a childish tailspin..

We actually had some good dialogue between posters in here until I disagreed with you about Iran/Israel.. Now you pretty much refuse to enter a discussion..

Again, false. I came to a conclusion about you in this thread, and posted that conclusion, long before I even knew what your position was on the Middle East. It is not your position on this thread that I have issue with. Several people share the main substance of your viewpoints, and I don't have a problem with any of them. I enjoy discussing the various aspects of this case with them, sometimes agreeing, often disagreeing. But for the most part they are thoughtful people who have something to contribute. (This includes, among others, jon_mx, Christo, renasauz, Zow, Witz, Chaos Commish, etc.)

The difference between them and you is that they don't choose to reply to EVERY post with even the slightest hint of criticism of George Zimmerman with "you can't prove that!". They don't repeat themselves endlessly assuming every aspect of Zimmerman's defense as truth, while at the same time denying that they're "pro-Zimmerman." They are able to engage in a give and take of ideas and new information, and they are a big part of what makes this forum so enjoyable for most people. I'd like to think that I am a part of that as well. Like you, I have posted an awful lot in this thread. Like you, I have repeated myself at times, sometimes to clarify a point, sometimes to engage a new person in an old but unresolved tangent. I hope that readers find that this is the only things we have in common.

You ask me to grow up. Part of maturity means being able to accept new information that may contradict a previously held belief- it means, at times, writing (and believing) the following: "Wow, I wasn't aware of that. If it's true, I may have to reconsider my position on this." Maturity, in this forum, also means at least trying to abstain from posting unless you have something new and/or interesting to offer. These are goals that I try to accomplish. I don't always succeed but at least I make the effort. I honestly don't know if you're capable of this. Until it's clear you are, I firmly believe that you are fully deserving of all of the criticism and ridicule which has come your way in this thread.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

This is wrong. In taunting you, pantherclub has offered more value to the discussion than you have. One post that makes fun of you is worth more, in terms of this discussion, than 500 posts from you in which you restate over and over your insipid arguments.

Like you've done numerous times in this thread..?For the last 3rd of the thread you've been harping on credibility.. "How can he be credible".. "Liar".. For the first 3rd in was "Institutionalized racism" and anecdotes..

Grow up, I don't agree with you on a lot of things obviously.. Me not agreeing with you shouldn't send you into a childish tailspin..

We actually had some good dialogue between posters in here until I disagreed with you about Iran/Israel.. Now you pretty much refuse to enter a discussion..

Again, false. I came to a conclusion about you in this thread, and posted that conclusion, long before I even knew what your position was on the Middle East. It is not your position on this thread that I have issue with. Several people share the main substance of your viewpoints, and I don't have a problem with any of them. I enjoy discussing the various aspects of this case with them, sometimes agreeing, often disagreeing. But for the most part they are thoughtful people who have something to contribute. (This includes, among others, jon_mx, Christo, renasauz, Zow, Witz, Chaos Commish, etc.)

The difference between them and you is that they don't choose to reply to EVERY post with even the slightest hint of criticism of George Zimmerman with "you can't prove that!". They don't repeat themselves endlessly assuming every aspect of Zimmerman's defense as truth, while at the same time denying that they're "pro-Zimmerman." They are able to engage in a give and take of ideas and new information, and they are a big part of what makes this forum so enjoyable for most people. I'd like to think that I am a part of that as well. Like you, I have posted an awful lot in this thread. Like you, I have repeated myself at times, sometimes to clarify a point, sometimes to engage a new person in an old but unresolved tangent. I hope that readers find that this is the only things we have in common.

You ask me to grow up. Part of maturity means being able to accept new information that may contradict a previously held belief- it means, at times, writing (and believing) the following: "Wow, I wasn't aware of that. If it's true, I may have to reconsider my position on this." Maturity, in this forum, also means at least trying to abstain from posting unless you have something new and/or interesting to offer. These are goals that I try to accomplish. I don't always succeed but at least I make the effort. I honestly don't know if you're capable of this. Until it's clear you are, I firmly believe that you are fully deserving of all of the criticism and ridicule which has come your way in this thread.

Any "criticism and ridicule" that has come my way in this thread his come from 1 of 6 anti-Zimmerman posters.. Why should I care? I have 0 respect for 2 of them I know for certain. And have serious question about the common sense or motive of a few of the others. 2 have never included 1 ounce of discussion and who's primary objective seems to taunt anyone that disagrees with the anti-Zimmerman agenda (Texanfan, Panther club).. Calling someone you don't know fat might be funny the first time, I like a fat joke like the next guy, but the womans weight has very little barring on the thread or the case, and it's obvious at this point that someone who offers up nothing else but fat comments or "he's Toast", or ;lmao; is intent on bring nothing meaningful to the thread, 2 others seem to be willing to discuss on some occasions but typically not without extreme cynicism and sarcasm (Sweeney, Busted knuckles).. You have been all over the chart, quite often times miss-quoting someone else's position, miss-quoting statements, miss-quoting articles, quoting your opinion as fact, "that's not what I meant", flip flopping, "Racism", ... And your recent childish tailspin..I could show you numerous times where I've viewed from the oppositions stand point, and also many times I tirelessly corrected miss-quoted statements, and opinion posted as fact.. If someone says "Zimmerman committed perjury" (or several other often spewed untruths)50 times, I'll respond with "there is no proof of that" 50 times.. Why? Because their isn't..

Trying to cram your opinion down someone else's throat should be met with resistance, sorry you don't like it.. But if you state something as fact that is only your opinion, I'm gonna call you on it..

We can either move on to discussing the case, or continue to let the thread devolve into taunting, trolling, personal attacks, etc.. until it's locked up..

 

[timschochet]

Added more than he has you'd have to admit.. I'm sure I've discussed topic here more than you have as well. I'm also not taunting anyone..

This is wrong. In taunting you, pantherclub has offered more value to the discussion than you have. One post that makes fun of you is worth more, in terms of this discussion, than 500 posts from you in which you restate over and over your insipid arguments.

Like you've done numerous times in this thread..?For the last 3rd of the thread you've been harping on credibility.. "How can he be credible".. "Liar".. For the first 3rd in was "Institutionalized racism" and anecdotes..

Grow up, I don't agree with you on a lot of things obviously.. Me not agreeing with you shouldn't send you into a childish tailspin..

We actually had some good dialogue between posters in here until I disagreed with you about Iran/Israel.. Now you pretty much refuse to enter a discussion..

Again, false. I came to a conclusion about you in this thread, and posted that conclusion, long before I even knew what your position was on the Middle East. It is not your position on this thread that I have issue with. Several people share the main substance of your viewpoints, and I don't have a problem with any of them. I enjoy discussing the various aspects of this case with them, sometimes agreeing, often disagreeing. But for the most part they are thoughtful people who have something to contribute. (This includes, among others, jon_mx, Christo, renasauz, Zow, Witz, Chaos Commish, etc.)

The difference between them and you is that they don't choose to reply to EVERY post with even the slightest hint of criticism of George Zimmerman with "you can't prove that!". They don't repeat themselves endlessly assuming every aspect of Zimmerman's defense as truth, while at the same time denying that they're "pro-Zimmerman." They are able to engage in a give and take of ideas and new information, and they are a big part of what makes this forum so enjoyable for most people. I'd like to think that I am a part of that as well. Like you, I have posted an awful lot in this thread. Like you, I have repeated myself at times, sometimes to clarify a point, sometimes to engage a new person in an old but unresolved tangent. I hope that readers find that this is the only things we have in common.

You ask me to grow up. Part of maturity means being able to accept new information that may contradict a previously held belief- it means, at times, writing (and believing) the following: "Wow, I wasn't aware of that. If it's true, I may have to reconsider my position on this." Maturity, in this forum, also means at least trying to abstain from posting unless you have something new and/or interesting to offer. These are goals that I try to accomplish. I don't always succeed but at least I make the effort. I honestly don't know if you're capable of this. Until it's clear you are, I firmly believe that you are fully deserving of all of the criticism and ridicule which has come your way in this thread.

Any "criticism and ridicule" that has come my way in this thread his come from 1 of 6 anti-Zimmerman posters.. Why should I care? I have 0 respect for 2 of them I know for certain. And have serious question about the common sense or motive of a few of the others. 2 have never included 1 ounce of discussion and who's primary objective seems to taunt anyone that disagrees with the anti-Zimmerman agenda (Texas fan, Panther club).. Calling someone you don't know fat might be funny the first time. I like a fat joke like the next guy, but the womans weight has very little barring on the thread or the case, and it's obvious at this point that someone who offers up nothing else but fat comments or "he's Toast", or ;lmao; is intent on bring nothing meaningful to the thread, 2 others seem to be willing to be willing to discuss on some occasions but typically not without extreme cynicism and sarcasm (Sweeney, Busted knuckles), You have been all over the chart, quite often times miss-quoting someone else's position, miss-quoting statements, miss-quoting articles, quoting your opinion as fact, "that's not what I meant", flip flopping, "Racism", ... And your recent childish tailspin..I could show you numerous times where I've viewed from the oppositions stand point, and also many times I tirelessly corrected miss-quoted statements, and opinion posted as fact.. If someone says "Zimmerman committed perjury" (or several other often spewed untruths)50 times, I'll respond with "there is no proof of that" 50 times.. Why? Because their isn't..

Trying to cram your opinion down someone else's throat should be met with resistance, sorry you don't like it.. But if you state something as fact that is only your opinion, I'm gonna call you on it..

We can either move on to discussing the case, or continue to let the thread devolve into taunting, trolling, personal attacks, etc.. until it's locked up..

I'm sure people can read what I wrote, and your response to it, and draw their own conclusions. I certainly have drawn mine. Anything further is best left unwritten.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Since this thread is going down the crapper, with everything getting personal, I offer a question to the lawyer guys to get it back on track: do you think if the given story (I realize that itb is not factual as of now) of Martin finally turning and attacking Zimmerman would be self-defense even in a State that doesn't have as liberal view of SYG as Florida, especially if Martin was on top of him?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Since this thread is going down the crapper, with everything getting personal, I offer a question to the lawyer guys to get it back on track: do you think if the given story (I realize that itb is not factual as of now) of Martin finally turning and attacking Zimmerman would be self-defense even in a State that doesn't have as liberal view of SYG as Florida, especially if Martin was on top of him?

From what I understand, the SYG isn't needed for a self defense claim in this case. I believe the attorney even said this early on..I think in most states (If not all) you can use a firearm for self defense in dire situations..The questions here are:- Who started the physical confrontation?- Was Trayvon really on top of Zimmerman?- Was the damage or potential damage enough to warrant the claims of fear?I think we'll find out about the 2nd question during the trial. The other 2 we'll probably never know.IMO, if Trayvon was on top, and Zimmerman couldn't escape, this isn't a SYG case.

 

[Christo]

Since this thread is going down the crapper, with everything getting personal, I offer a question to the lawyer guys to get it back on track: do you think if the given story (I realize that itb is not factual as of now) of Martin finally turning and attacking Zimmerman would be self-defense even in a State that doesn't have as liberal view of SYG as Florida, especially if Martin was on top of him?

It's still the same. Here's the California jury instruction:

505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party&gt was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime&gt];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505.html

 

[pittstownkiller]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

 

[timschochet]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

 

[Christo]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

 

[jon_mx]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

 

[pittstownkiller]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Well Christo, that is what I was wondering. Could Zimmerman's lawyer possibly introduce this claim, without Zimmerman testifying, by asking the police why they failed to arrest him on the night of the shooting, stating that he felt that he was in fear for his life in his police questioning? Could Zimmerman's injuries also be introduced much this way. Just wondering.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

George Zimmerman’s wife becomes focus of attention.

At a bond hearing April 20, Shellie Zimmerman testified that she and her husband were broke.

In truth, they had access to more than $130,000 in the PayPal account, according to prosecution paperwork.

George and Shellie Zimmerman talked about the money several times on a recorded phone line at the Seminole County Jail, according to court records.

He talked her through how to transfer it and directed her to pay off their bills, records show.

She moved $74,000 into her account during one four-day period while he was in jail, records show, and George Zimmerman’s sister transferred an additional $47,000 into hers.

On Tuesday, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury. She was released from a short stay in the Seminole County Jail after posting $1,000 bail.

What will happen now?

The charge is a felony and could carry a five-year prison term. But Bill Sheaffer, an Orlando defense attorney and legal analyst for WFTV, predicted that if she enters a plea, she would likely wind up on probation.

Shellie Zimmerman has no record of prior arrests, and the lies she’s charged with telling did not send an innocent man to prison or allow a guilty one to go free, he said.

Still, "if the criminal justice system is to seek the truth, nothing sabotages that more than a liar," Sheaffer said.

Shellie Zimmerman is not a key witness in her husband’s case, and the lies she’s accused of telling probably won’t impact his prosecution, he said, but they did him no good.

Sheaffer said she has "significantly tarnished, at least in the court of public opinion, her husband’s credibility."

 

[Christo]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

Not knowing what he said at the scene, there had to be some statement that Zimmerman felt threatened; after all thy did not arrest him (though some officers wanted to).

 

[Christo]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

Not knowing what he said at the scene, there had to be some statement that Zimmerman felt threatened; after all thy did not arrest him (though some officers wanted to).

Sure, you can speculate. Or you can read the police incident report.

 

[El Conquistador]

to “have as much cash on [her] as possible,”

I think I'd take this one as either trying to hide money in cash. For 1 of 2 reasons- Either save the money someplace it can't be found later to spend it on living expenses

- keep money in cash for easy access in case they need to run

to use the money, which was donated by supporters, to “pay off all the bills,” including accounts with American Express and Sam’s Club.

This doesn't strike me as being a problem. They need to pay for their bills and household expenses. These bills need to be paid, and he doesn't have a job..And if they're paying off bills, doesn't look like they're getting prepared to run.



You still haven't given your opinion.. Lets discuss..

Everyone is laughing at you. Everyone.

I am not laughing at you amigo. I am laughing with you.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

Not knowing what he said at the scene, there had to be some statement that Zimmerman felt threatened; after all thy did not arrest him (though some officers wanted to).

Sure, you can speculate. Or you can read the police incident report.

I guess this is why I asked the lawyers since I would only have more questions after reading the police report.

 

[jon_mx]

I sat next to a hispanic man and a black man on my flight home. We settled all our differences.

/thread

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I sat next to a hispanic man and a black man on my flight home. We settled all our differences./thread

link?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

Not knowing what he said at the scene, there had to be some statement that Zimmerman felt threatened; after all thy did not arrest him (though some officers wanted to).

Sure, you can speculate. Or you can read the police incident report.

Would the defense call an officer to the stand to give that testimony? And could an officers testimony that Zimmerman was in fear for his life be enough? Or maybe that fear is implied by his screams for help as witnessed by "John"?Is any of this plausible? Could the defense enter a self defense plea through witness or officer testimony?

 

[Christo]

So a scenario (yes I know this is conjecture) where Zimmerman, following Martin frightening him, turns back around to return to his car but Martin is now pissed because he feels he was run off and goes after him could still produce a situation where Zimmerman - while instigating the confrontation - might find himself in a defensive position.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman instigated it. If at any time he felt his life was threatened, he had the legal right to kill Martin. I don't like this much, but that's the law as I understand it, and there's no way I could possibly vote guilty if there was reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether this occured. Which is why I agree that the prosecution's case, based on what we know, seems fundamentally weak.That being said, if Zimmerman says that Martin instigated the confrontation, and he is contradicted by other witnesses as to this point, and the jury believes the other witnesses and not Zimmerman, that will probably be enough for the jury to convict him of at least manslaughter, I would think. if the jury thinks Z is a liar then he's probably going down. It wouldn't be enough for me, but I suspect it will be enough for them.

Why do you think Zimmerman has to testify?

How else does a defendant claim self-defense? One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary. The only person who knows the defendant's state of mind is the defendant.

Will the prosecution not present Zimmerman's statements and try to blow holes in it. At that point, won't Zimmerman's story be on record?

As far as Zimmerman's statements go, I don't see why the prosecution would seek to have police officers testify to anything he said other than what he said at the scene.

Not knowing what he said at the scene, there had to be some statement that Zimmerman felt threatened; after all thy did not arrest him (though some officers wanted to).

Sure, you can speculate. Or you can read the police incident report.

Would the defense call an officer to the stand to give that testimony? And could an officers testimony that Zimmerman was in fear for his life be enough? Or maybe that fear is implied by his screams for help as witnessed by "John"?Is any of this plausible? Could the defense enter a self defense plea through witness or officer testimony?

The only way the defense could get a police officer to testify about Zimmerman's statements is if the prosecution asked the police officer about statements made by Zimmerman during a particular conversation and on cross examination the defense asked about other statements made by Zimmerman in that same conversation. If the prosecution asked one of the cops at the scene what Zimmerman said at the scene, it doesn't open the door for the defense to question the same cop about what Zimmerman said back at the police station or any other subsequent conversations.Nor could the defense call to the stand one of the cops who interviewed Zimmerman at a later date and ask him to testify about what Zimmerman said. The prosecution's hearsay objection would be sustained.

 

[timschochet]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination.

I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it.

Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

 

[Zow]

Yeah in order for Zimmerman to claim self defense he has to both testify and essentially admit to the elements of the offense (I.e. He intentionally shot Martin) then put forth some evidence as to why his use of deadly force was justified (I.e. Martin was exuding similar force on him and he reasonably believed his use of deadly force was necessary), then the state has to firmly convince a jury (aka prove beyond s reasonable doubt) he wasn't justified in this case.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah in order for Zimmerman to claim self defense he has to both testify and essentially admit to the elements of the offense (I.e. He intentionally shot Martin) then put forth some evidence as to why his use of deadly force was justified (I.e. Martin was exuding similar force on him and he reasonably believed his use of deadly force was necessary), then the state has to firmly convince a jury (aka prove beyond s reasonable doubt) he wasn't justified in this case.

Zow, do you agree with my assessment that, though the law says "reasonable doubt", that in reality if the prosecution can simply convince the jury that Zimmerman is lying about what happened, that may be enough to secure his conviction, at least for manslaughter?

 

[Christo]

Yeah in order for Zimmerman to claim self defense he has to both testify and essentially admit to the elements of the offense (I.e. He intentionally shot Martin) then put forth some evidence as to why his use of deadly force was justified (I.e. Martin was exuding similar force on him and he reasonably believed his use of deadly force was necessary), then the state has to firmly convince a jury (aka prove beyond s reasonable doubt) he wasn't justified in this case.

Zow, do you agree with my assessment that, though the law says "reasonable doubt", that in reality if the prosecution can simply convince the jury that Zimmerman is lying about what happened, that may be enough to secure his conviction, at least for manslaughter?

You're asking him to get into the minds of the jury. The best jury specialists in the world get it wrong all the time.The answer is that anything's possible when it comes to a jury.

 

[Zow]

Also, those of you suggesting that the defense and or state could elicit from the officers what Zimmerman told officers regarding how he felt threatened and that Martin attacked him are likely out of luck. While it's common for a defense atty to elicit from officers the positive things his client said (Ive done this plenty) technically such evidence is inadmissible hearsay and a sharp prosecutor would motion the court before trial to prevent the defense from doing this (unless it's for impeachment). The only reason the defendants "confessions" are admissible at trial is because there's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows "statements against interest" under the theory that a person wouldn't lie to hurt themselves and therefore the trier of fact could reasonably find the statements reliable. Here, since zimmermans statements regarding being threatened are in his interest, there are hearsay if repeated in court by police.

Zimmerman likely has to testify about what he told the police if the defense wants those statements heard.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Doesn't sound like much has changed since I last checked in? Zimmerman's still a cross between Batman and Bronson whose statements won't match each other or the physical evidence when we get to court?

Sure sounds like he's just not a very good liar -- he didn't fool the lead investigator on the night of the murder, and he didn't fool the judge in the case. Probably won't be able to fool a jury either.