Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

Here's why I lean toward Zimmerman's guilt. From what I know, all of the following statements are true:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and followed Martin in his car.

2. Zimmerman complained about these guys (thugs) "always getting away."

3. Zimmerman was advised not to follow Martin.

4. At some point Zimmerman got out of his car.

5. Zimmerman was both physically bigger and older than Martin.

6. Zimmerman was armed.

7. Martin was unarmed.

8. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Zimmerman's defenders argue that Z is innocent due to self-defense; however, all such arguments are based on conjecture: that Martin confronted Zimmerman, that there was a struggle which Martin initiated, that Zimmerman was beneath Martin screaming for help, that Zimmerman received wounds that he at the time considered life-threatening, that Martin told Zimmerman that he, Martin, was going to kill Zimmerman, etc. There isn't proof of ANY of this. All we have are witnesses who are contradictory in their testimony, along with the testimony of Zimmerman himself. And the whole bail funds thing should demonstrate to any reasonable person that Zimmerman is not a trustworthy source of information.

Logically, therefore, there is every reason for me (and I hope, for any reasonable person reading this) to believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Belief and proof are not the same thing. The prosecution has a much higher standard than I have in this forum, and I have stated several times that, based on what I know, I would have to vote to acquit George Zimmerman if I were on a jury. But since I'm not on the jury, I can use common sense in order to come up with a conclusion about what I THINK happened. And I can further conclude that if anyone reading this actually believes in Zimmerman's probable innocence (instead of probable guilt) you are either not paying attention or you are a victim of your own personal or political agenda.

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent. I notice you list 8 factors but not a single one goes to his state of mind when Zimmerman shot Martin. And that's all that matters.

I'm not in a court of law. How the hell do I know what Zimmerman's state of mind is? I agree with you, if I were in a court of law that's all that would matter, and unless the prosecution could proof otherwise I vote to acquit. But I don't have to be limited to such rules.

Yes, in that messed up mind of yours you don't have to follow any rules. But the rest of us are talking about the real world. So when you say "Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder" I'm applying it to the real world. And in the real world, you are wrong.

No I am not. Your problem is that you think the real world is a court of law. It isn't. Turn off the legal blinders and apply some common sense for once.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic tenets in our society. Your refusal to recognize that is what makes no sense.

 

[TexanFan02]

Here's why I lean toward Zimmerman's guilt. From what I know, all of the following statements are true:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and followed Martin in his car.

2. Zimmerman complained about these guys (thugs) "always getting away."

3. Zimmerman was advised not to follow Martin.

4. At some point Zimmerman got out of his car.

5. Zimmerman was both physically bigger and older than Martin.

6. Zimmerman was armed.

7. Martin was unarmed.

8. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Zimmerman's defenders argue that Z is innocent due to self-defense; however, all such arguments are based on conjecture: that Martin confronted Zimmerman, that there was a struggle which Martin initiated, that Zimmerman was beneath Martin screaming for help, that Zimmerman received wounds that he at the time considered life-threatening, that Martin told Zimmerman that he, Martin, was going to kill Zimmerman, etc. There isn't proof of ANY of this. All we have are witnesses who are contradictory in their testimony, along with the testimony of Zimmerman himself. And the whole bail funds thing should demonstrate to any reasonable person that Zimmerman is not a trustworthy source of information.

Logically, therefore, there is every reason for me (and I hope, for any reasonable person reading this) to believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Belief and proof are not the same thing. The prosecution has a much higher standard than I have in this forum, and I have stated several times that, based on what I know, I would have to vote to acquit George Zimmerman if I were on a jury. But since I'm not on the jury, I can use common sense in order to come up with a conclusion about what I THINK happened. And I can further conclude that if anyone reading this actually believes in Zimmerman's probable innocence (instead of probable guilt) you are either not paying attention or you are a victim of your own personal or political agenda.

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent. I notice you list 8 factors but not a single one goes to his state of mind when Zimmerman shot Martin. And that's all that matters.

I'm not in a court of law. How the hell do I know what Zimmerman's state of mind is? I agree with you, if I were in a court of law that's all that would matter, and unless the prosecution could proof otherwise I vote to acquit. But I don't have to be limited to such rules.

Yes, in that messed up mind of yours you don't have to follow any rules. But the rest of us are talking about the real world. So when you say "Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder" I'm applying it to the real world. And in the real world, you are wrong.

No I am not. Your problem is that you think the real world is a court of law. It isn't. Turn off the legal blinders and apply some common sense for once.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic tenets in our society. Your refusal to recognize that is what makes no sense.

He's still legally innocent until proven guilty. I think he'll be proven guilty. You Zimmerman defenders think he should never have been arrested. Two Florida judges disagree with you.

 

[Christo]

Here's why I lean toward Zimmerman's guilt. From what I know, all of the following statements are true:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and followed Martin in his car.

2. Zimmerman complained about these guys (thugs) "always getting away."

3. Zimmerman was advised not to follow Martin.

4. At some point Zimmerman got out of his car.

5. Zimmerman was both physically bigger and older than Martin.

6. Zimmerman was armed.

7. Martin was unarmed.

8. Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Zimmerman's defenders argue that Z is innocent due to self-defense; however, all such arguments are based on conjecture: that Martin confronted Zimmerman, that there was a struggle which Martin initiated, that Zimmerman was beneath Martin screaming for help, that Zimmerman received wounds that he at the time considered life-threatening, that Martin told Zimmerman that he, Martin, was going to kill Zimmerman, etc. There isn't proof of ANY of this. All we have are witnesses who are contradictory in their testimony, along with the testimony of Zimmerman himself. And the whole bail funds thing should demonstrate to any reasonable person that Zimmerman is not a trustworthy source of information.

Logically, therefore, there is every reason for me (and I hope, for any reasonable person reading this) to believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Belief and proof are not the same thing. The prosecution has a much higher standard than I have in this forum, and I have stated several times that, based on what I know, I would have to vote to acquit George Zimmerman if I were on a jury. But since I'm not on the jury, I can use common sense in order to come up with a conclusion about what I THINK happened. And I can further conclude that if anyone reading this actually believes in Zimmerman's probable innocence (instead of probable guilt) you are either not paying attention or you are a victim of your own personal or political agenda.

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent. I notice you list 8 factors but not a single one goes to his state of mind when Zimmerman shot Martin. And that's all that matters.

I'm not in a court of law. How the hell do I know what Zimmerman's state of mind is? I agree with you, if I were in a court of law that's all that would matter, and unless the prosecution could proof otherwise I vote to acquit. But I don't have to be limited to such rules.

Yes, in that messed up mind of yours you don't have to follow any rules. But the rest of us are talking about the real world. So when you say "Anyone who tries to be objective and accepts the above as facts has to at least begin with the presumption that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder" I'm applying it to the real world. And in the real world, you are wrong.

No I am not. Your problem is that you think the real world is a court of law. It isn't. Turn off the legal blinders and apply some common sense for once.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic tenets in our society. Your refusal to recognize that is what makes no sense.

He's still legally innocent until proven guilty. I think he'll be proven guilty. You Zimmerman defenders think he should never have been arrested. Two Florida judges disagree with you.

Talk about putting words in people's mouths.

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

1. None of those calls confirm who is crying for help. Martin's family and girlfriend claim it is Martin crying for help. Who knows? At this point there is no proof. 2. See my above post about the injuries that Zimmerman sustained. They are not proof that he feared for his life.

3. Certainly Zimmerman's statement is proof of nothing.

So again, this is all conjecture, and all of it is hotly debated, which is completely unlike any of the items I listed. Which is why, again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn at this point is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Tim> All of your items proves nothing without filling in the huge gaping blanks.re: the bolded, absent any evidence that Martin received similar injuries I'd say it points very strongly that Zimmerman feared for his life. If you really think Martin was the one screaming for help all I got for you is: If the screams for help happened in a very short time frame to the gun shot it has to be Zimmerman that is yelling, when taken into consideration Martin has no injuries. All of the 911 reports I am hearing make it sound like "I heard screams for help and then a gunshot."

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture. I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

This is what happens when you quit D3? Oy vey.

You can't seem to make a solid argument in this thread on questions I have asked, so keep digging into other stuff I have posted TexasFan...

 

[identikit]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

 

[timschochet]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

1. None of those calls confirm who is crying for help. Martin's family and girlfriend claim it is Martin crying for help. Who knows? At this point there is no proof. 2. See my above post about the injuries that Zimmerman sustained. They are not proof that he feared for his life.

3. Certainly Zimmerman's statement is proof of nothing.

So again, this is all conjecture, and all of it is hotly debated, which is completely unlike any of the items I listed. Which is why, again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn at this point is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Tim> All of your items proves nothing without filling in the huge gaping blanks.re: the bolded, absent any evidence that Martin received similar injuries I'd say it points very strongly that he feared for his life. If you really think Martin was the one screaming for help all I got for you is: If the screams for help happened in a very short time frame to the gun shot it has to be Zimmerman that is yelling, when taken into consideration Martin has no injuries.

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

 

[TexanFan02]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture. I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

This is what happens when you quit D3? Oy vey.

You can't seem to make a solid argument in this thread on questions I have asked, so keep digging into other stuff I have posted TexasFan...

I'm not bothering because everything you're posting has been gone over multiple times. Tim is just indulging you because he can't help himself.

 

[Christo]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

Why would I write that when it's not what I believe? What do you mean by "he probably did it"? Where did I ever say "they never should have arrested him"? Where did I say "I wouldn't mind seeing him walk"?

You really are living in La-La Land, aren't you?

 

[Christo]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

I really think he's lost it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

1. None of those calls confirm who is crying for help. Martin's family and girlfriend claim it is Martin crying for help. Who knows? At this point there is no proof. 2. See my above post about the injuries that Zimmerman sustained. They are not proof that he feared for his life.

3. Certainly Zimmerman's statement is proof of nothing.

So again, this is all conjecture, and all of it is hotly debated, which is completely unlike any of the items I listed. Which is why, again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn at this point is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Tim> All of your items proves nothing without filling in the huge gaping blanks.re: the bolded, absent any evidence that Martin received similar injuries I'd say it points very strongly that he feared for his life. If you really think Martin was the one screaming for help all I got for you is: If the screams for help happened in a very short time frame to the gun shot it has to be Zimmerman that is yelling, when taken into consideration Martin has no injuries.

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

Now I know you are going to claim Zimmerman was lying, but let's assume he was telling the truth. If that person beating on you said you are going to die tonight, I am going to kill you as he is beating on you and you are incapable of getting this guy off of you, then what? What were the circumstances when you sustained those injuries, were you on the ground and was the assailant on top of you or were you standing up in a position where you could run away if you wanted to?

 

[jon_mx]

.... Zimmerman's defenders argue that Z is innocent due to self-defense; however, all such arguments are based on conjecture: that Martin confronted Zimmerman, that there was a struggle which Martin initiated, that Zimmerman was beneath Martin screaming for help, that Zimmerman received wounds that he at the time considered life-threatening, that Martin told Zimmerman that he, Martin, was going to kill Zimmerman, etc. There isn't proof of ANY of this. All we have are witnesses who are contradictory in their testimony, along with the testimony of Zimmerman himself. And the whole bail funds thing should demonstrate to any reasonable person that Zimmerman is not a trustworthy source of information.

Legally, it does not matter who initiated the struggle. Based on injuries and testimony, it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was on the bottom getting beat up. The screaming was recorded on a 911 call and does speak to the state of mind. If that is Zimmerman, it is reasonable to conclude he was in fear of his life at the time he pulled the trigger. If it was Zimmerman getting his ### kicked, it is reasonable to believe that it was Zimmerman screaming. The wounds do not need to be life-threatening. I really don't care what Martin said, but Zimmerman's testimony is proof.Facts which support Zimmerman's innocence.1. Zimmerman's testimony.2. Physical injuries. (At one time Tim thought the lack of a hospital report was critical, but now there is a doctor's report, Tim discounts it.)3. 911 call. There is a high probability it was Zimmerman screaming4. Witnesses. There was a struggle, and in all likelihood, it was Martin on top doing the beating.5. Forensics show the shooting was at close range.6. There was a violent fight and there was a gun present. IMHO, a reasonable person would have fear for his life. Facts which support it was not self-defense:1. --------????Tim's list did not speak to any of the elements of self-defense. Yes, Zimmerman killed Martin. But to be murder, the state will have to show it was not self-defense. Serious question, what evidence is there?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture. I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

This is what happens when you quit D3? Oy vey.

You can't seem to make a solid argument in this thread on questions I have asked, so keep digging into other stuff I have posted TexasFan...

I'm not bothering because everything you're posting has been gone over multiple times. Tim is just indulging you because he can't help himself.

wrong, you are not bothering because you know you are wrong, I'm done.

 

[timschochet]

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic tenets in our society. Your refusal to recognize that is what makes no sense.

When did I refuse to recognize this? 1. Zimmerman is legally innocent.2. Zimmerman should, in a court of law, have to be proven guilty in order to be convicted.3. Based on what I know at this time, if I were on the jury I could not in good conscience vote to convict Zimmerman. 4. I believe that Zimmerman probably murdered Trayvon Martin.5. In my judgment, I believe that anyone who looks the known facts of this case reasonably, throwing out conjecture, will come to the conclusion that Zimmerman probably murdered Trayvon Martin.How do any of the above statements contradict each other? They don't.

 

[pittstownkiller]

JoJo asked for proof that Zimmerman assaulted Martin. Actually, that's the ONLY proof we have in this case: we know that Zimmerman shot Martin to death. Zimmerman has admitted this fact. Everything else is conjecture.

The fact that Zimmerman shot Martin would be enough to convict Zimmerman except that Zimmerman claims self defense. Zimmerman will have to attempt to prove this claim before a jury, and despite what Jon and others claim, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the veracity of Zimmermans explanation of events. If the jury thinks Zimmerman is lying, he will probably be convicted of at least manslaughter.

Tim he is not charged with this; you do know that they just don't go down a list until they get a conviction? Maybe they'll charge Zimmerman with walking on the grass, or "littering" his blood on the sidewalk. A murder 2 conviction would carry a mandatory sentence minimum of 25 years because a gun was used; do you think a jury would convict with this knowledge? Christo, would a jury even have this knowledge of sentencing guidelines before going into deliberations?

 

[TexanFan02]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

This is what happens when you quit D3? Oy vey.

You can't seem to make a solid argument in this thread on questions I have asked, so keep digging into other stuff I have posted TexasFan...

I'm not bothering because everything you're posting has been gone over multiple times. Tim is just indulging you because he can't help himself.

wrong, you are not bothering because you know you are wrong, I'm done.

Good. Although I don't believe you.

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

Why would I write that when it's not what I believe? What do you mean by "he probably did it"? Where did I ever say "they never should have arrested him"? Where did I say "I wouldn't mind seeing him walk"?

You really are living in La-La Land, aren't you?

You're not one of the people that post was addressed to. I don't consider you to be a "pro-Zimmerman" type.

 

[timschochet]

Now I know you are going to claim Zimmerman was lying, but let's assume he was telling the truth. If that person beating on you said you are going to die tonight, I am going to kill you as he is beating on you and you are incapable of getting this guy off of you, then what? What were the circumstances when you sustained those injuries, were you on the ground and was the assailant on top of you or were you standing up in a position where you could run away if you wanted to?

If we assume Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he is innocent of all charges. And if I felt my life was threatened, and I had a gun, I would use it. Of course. Furthermore, I'm not going to "claim" Zimmerman was lying, because I don't know. I stated earlier what I knew about this case. You're talking about conjecture now, which none of us know. I don't even have Zimmerman's exact statement, only summaries of it. But here's what I do know: Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie to the court. Now that's not admissible at trial, but to me it demonstrates that Zimmerman is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean he lied in his statement to the police, or that he will lie when he testifies. But it does mean that I am more skeptical than I would have been previously. And you should be too.

 

[Christo]

I don't understand why you guys just can't write the following:

Yeah, he probably did it, but it will be near impossible to prove in a court of law so they never should have arrested him. I'm not defending the scumbag, but I don't like the lynch mob mentality of his accusers either, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing him walk because I detest the political pressures that have been a part of this case.

This is a perfecty reasonable position to have, and I suspect it is the position of many of those who get labeled "pro-Zimmerman". I'm sympathetic to much of this position. But there's a big difference between this and writing, "Based on the information we have, I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense; that's probably what happened." The latter is BS. It's possible, but nobody in their right mind can conclude it's probable. Come on now.

Why would I write that when it's not what I believe? What do you mean by "he probably did it"? Where did I ever say "they never should have arrested him"? Where did I say "I wouldn't mind seeing him walk"?

You really are living in La-La Land, aren't you?

You're not one of the people that post was addressed to. I don't consider you to be a "pro-Zimmerman" type.

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

 

[jon_mx]

Now I know you are going to claim Zimmerman was lying, but let's assume he was telling the truth. If that person beating on you said you are going to die tonight, I am going to kill you as he is beating on you and you are incapable of getting this guy off of you, then what? What were the circumstances when you sustained those injuries, were you on the ground and was the assailant on top of you or were you standing up in a position where you could run away if you wanted to?

If we assume Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he is innocent of all charges. And if I felt my life was threatened, and I had a gun, I would use it. Of course. Furthermore, I'm not going to "claim" Zimmerman was lying, because I don't know. I stated earlier what I knew about this case. You're talking about conjecture now, which none of us know. I don't even have Zimmerman's exact statement, only summaries of it. But here's what I do know: Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie to the court. Now that's not admissible at trial, but to me it demonstrates that Zimmerman is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean he lied in his statement to the police, or that he will lie when he testifies. But it does mean that I am more skeptical than I would have been previously. And you should be too.

Zimmerman may be untrustworthy, but I think there is enough evidence which supports self-defense without knowing or believing anything Zimmerman said.

 

[jon_mx]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

1. None of those calls confirm who is crying for help. Martin's family and girlfriend claim it is Martin crying for help. Who knows? At this point there is no proof. 2. See my above post about the injuries that Zimmerman sustained. They are not proof that he feared for his life.

3. Certainly Zimmerman's statement is proof of nothing.

So again, this is all conjecture, and all of it is hotly debated, which is completely unlike any of the items I listed. Which is why, again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn at this point is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Tim> All of your items proves nothing without filling in the huge gaping blanks.re: the bolded, absent any evidence that Martin received similar injuries I'd say it points very strongly that he feared for his life. If you really think Martin was the one screaming for help all I got for you is: If the screams for help happened in a very short time frame to the gun shot it has to be Zimmerman that is yelling, when taken into consideration Martin has no injuries.

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

There were multiple screams over a time frame of many seconds. Are you telling me you believe Zimmerman was on the bottom, getting his ### kicked, he managed to pull out a gun and hold it for 10 seconds (ETA, the tape has almost a minute of screaming before the shot) or so before he shot and it was Martin doing the screaming. The person was screaming 'help me...help me...help me', not 'don't shoot. I don't see it reasonable to believe it was Martin screaming. It makes far more sense that it was Zimmerman screaming as he was getting his ### kicked, he finally was able to pull out his gun and shot it before Martin really knew it. I think Zimmerman may have embellished the story to the police, but then I still think it was self-defense under the circumstances.

 

[timschochet]

Now I know you are going to claim Zimmerman was lying, but let's assume he was telling the truth. If that person beating on you said you are going to die tonight, I am going to kill you as he is beating on you and you are incapable of getting this guy off of you, then what? What were the circumstances when you sustained those injuries, were you on the ground and was the assailant on top of you or were you standing up in a position where you could run away if you wanted to?

If we assume Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he is innocent of all charges. And if I felt my life was threatened, and I had a gun, I would use it. Of course. Furthermore, I'm not going to "claim" Zimmerman was lying, because I don't know. I stated earlier what I knew about this case. You're talking about conjecture now, which none of us know. I don't even have Zimmerman's exact statement, only summaries of it. But here's what I do know: Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie to the court. Now that's not admissible at trial, but to me it demonstrates that Zimmerman is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean he lied in his statement to the police, or that he will lie when he testifies. But it does mean that I am more skeptical than I would have been previously. And you should be too.

Zimmerman may be untrustworthy, but I think there is enough evidence which supports self-defense without knowing or believing anything Zimmerman said.

And that's where we disagree, because I don't think there is. I started to address your "facts" point by point, but that was what I criticized JoJo for doing earlier, so I stopped. Let's just say that I consider most of what you wrote to be conjecture based on assumptions which I don't consider reasonable.

 

[jon_mx]

Now I know you are going to claim Zimmerman was lying, but let's assume he was telling the truth. If that person beating on you said you are going to die tonight, I am going to kill you as he is beating on you and you are incapable of getting this guy off of you, then what? What were the circumstances when you sustained those injuries, were you on the ground and was the assailant on top of you or were you standing up in a position where you could run away if you wanted to?

If we assume Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he is innocent of all charges. And if I felt my life was threatened, and I had a gun, I would use it. Of course. Furthermore, I'm not going to "claim" Zimmerman was lying, because I don't know. I stated earlier what I knew about this case. You're talking about conjecture now, which none of us know. I don't even have Zimmerman's exact statement, only summaries of it. But here's what I do know: Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie to the court. Now that's not admissible at trial, but to me it demonstrates that Zimmerman is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean he lied in his statement to the police, or that he will lie when he testifies. But it does mean that I am more skeptical than I would have been previously. And you should be too.

Zimmerman may be untrustworthy, but I think there is enough evidence which supports self-defense without knowing or believing anything Zimmerman said.

And that's where we disagree, because I don't think there is. I started to address your "facts" point by point, but that was what I criticized JoJo for doing earlier, so I stopped. Let's just say that I consider most of what you wrote to be conjecture based on assumptions which I don't consider reasonable.

JoJo criticized your facts because they have nothing to do with the elements of murder (ie. no self-defense).

 

[timschochet]

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

I think he probably murdered Martin. I don't believe he feared for his life. Those are my presumptions going in. His testimony, or the testimony of other people, may indeed change my mind about this. I'll let you know.

 

[identikit]

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

I think he probably murdered Martin. I don't believe he feared for his life. Those are my presumptions going in. His testimony, or the testimony of other people, may indeed change my mind about this. I'll let you know.

No doubt about all of the bolded.

 

[Christo]

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

I think he probably murdered Martin. I don't believe he feared for his life. Those are my presumptions going in. His testimony, or the testimony of other people, may indeed change my mind about this. I'll let you know.

He didn't have to fear for his life. But that's the law. So why do you care?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What am I leaving out that has been proved? Everything else is conjecture.

I don't understand why you would bother to respond to what I wrote on a line by line basis. It's only when you put it all together that you can make a reasonable conclusion.

The cries for help noted by 7 different calls to 911, the injuries that Zimmerman sustained and documented by EMT on the scene, his statement. Come on man, don't play stupid.

1. None of those calls confirm who is crying for help. Martin's family and girlfriend claim it is Martin crying for help. Who knows? At this point there is no proof. 2. See my above post about the injuries that Zimmerman sustained. They are not proof that he feared for his life.

3. Certainly Zimmerman's statement is proof of nothing.

So again, this is all conjecture, and all of it is hotly debated, which is completely unlike any of the items I listed. Which is why, again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn at this point is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Tim> All of your items proves nothing without filling in the huge gaping blanks.re: the bolded, absent any evidence that Martin received similar injuries I'd say it points very strongly that he feared for his life. If you really think Martin was the one screaming for help all I got for you is: If the screams for help happened in a very short time frame to the gun shot it has to be Zimmerman that is yelling, when taken into consideration Martin has no injuries.

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

There were multiple screams over a time frame of many seconds. Are you telling me you believe Zimmerman was on the bottom, getting his ### kicked, he managed to pull out a gun and hold it for 10 seconds (ETA, the tape has almost a minute of screaming before the shot) or so before he shot and it was Martin doing the screaming. The person was screaming 'help me...help me...help me', not 'don't shoot. I don't see it reasonable to believe it was Martin screaming. It makes far more sense that it was Zimmerman screaming as he was getting his ### kicked, he finally was able to pull out his gun and shot it before Martin really knew it. I think Zimmerman may have embellished the story to the police, but then I still think it was self-defense under the circumstances.

Bumping this for you since you make a couple of good points. Tim > when you had a gun pointed at you, did you scream "help me" or something else?

 

[timschochet]

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

I think he probably murdered Martin. I don't believe he feared for his life. Those are my presumptions going in. His testimony, or the testimony of other people, may indeed change my mind about this. I'll let you know.

He didn't have to fear for his life. But that's the law. So why do you care?

If the law says he can kill Trayvon Martin without having to fear for his life, then you're right I don't care about such a law, except to the extent that I detest it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why would anyone who is arguing against you admit "he probably did it" when you haven't defined what that means? Murder? Manslaughter? Inappropriate use of force? All that matters is Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Martin. Even you admit that you don't know Zimmerman's state of mind at that point in time. How can you say he probably did it without even hearing his testimony?

I think he probably murdered Martin. I don't believe he feared for his life. Those are my presumptions going in. His testimony, or the testimony of other people, may indeed change my mind about this. I'll let you know.

He didn't have to fear for his life. But that's the law. So why do you care?

If the law says he can kill Trayvon Martin without having to fear for his life, then you're right I don't care about such a law, except to the extent that I detest it.

this has probably been posted in the last 300 pages or so:

Chapter 776, Florida StatutesChapter 776, Florida Statutes, is Florida law pertaining to the justifiable use of force.Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005. The changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the provisions of what is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony.

ETA: I stand corrected, "stand your ground" does not apply here:http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/florida%E2%80%99s-self-defense-laws#He does a pretty good job of explaining the two narratives and their outcomes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent.

Question - not argument.How does a "self defense" defense change this? If he has to prove that the shooting was "self defense" doesn't that seem that the tables are turned and he is guilty until Zimmerman can demonstrate otherwise? And what is the level, both legally and practically required for this proof?

(I guess the big assumption here is that the prosecutors still needs to prove that under normal circumstances what happened would have been the "murder 2" crime, so my question is asked under that assumption being the case.)

I'm kind of lost at some of the legal experts comments here. Sometimes the legal analysis seems contradictory which I assume is simply because we just keep changing the assumptions involved. In simplistic layman's term is this case

[*]Prosecution try to prove that a crime happened ...

[*]...and that Zimmerman did it.

[*]Defense acknowledges that Zimmerman did it ...

[*]...and tries to prove it wasn't a crime because of self defense.

That many have speculated that the first part may be a hurdle that the prosecution won't be able to clear pretrial (pre jury trial) which would result in the case being tossed out. Is that true? If this makes it to a jury, would this hurdle be practically cleared (if not 100% legally)?

As a spectator what would give hints to how this will turn out, or is it all a crap shot right now?

 

[Christo]

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent.

Question - not argument.How does a "self defense" defense change this? If he has to prove that the shooting was "self defense" doesn't that seem that the tables are turned and he is guilty until Zimmerman can demonstrate otherwise? And what is the level, both legally and practically required for this proof?

(I guess the big assumption here is that the prosecutors still needs to prove that under normal circumstances what happened would have been the "murder 2" crime, so my question is asked under that assumption being the case.)

I'm kind of lost at some of the legal experts comments here. Sometimes the legal analysis seems contradictory which I assume is simply because we just keep changing the assumptions involved. In simplistic layman's term is this case

[*]Prosecution try to prove that a crime happened ...

[*]...and that Zimmerman did it.

[*]Defense acknowledges that Zimmerman did it ...

[*]...and tries to prove it wasn't a crime because of self defense.

That many have speculated that the first part may be a hurdle that the prosecution won't be able to clear pretrial (pre jury trial) which would result in the case being tossed out. Is that true? If this makes it to a jury, would this hurdle be practically cleared (if not 100% legally)?

As a spectator what would give hints to how this will turn out, or is it all a crap shot right now?

He doesn't have to prove self-defense. All he has to do is claim self-defense and the prosecutor is required to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it wasn't self-defense.Edit: Zimmerman's burden is what they call a burden of production. He just has to provide some evidence. But he doesn't even have to prove his self-defense claim is more likely than not.

 

[bonesman]

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an idiot.

 

[jon_mx]

The way this non lawyer understands it, if the self defense claim establishes reasonable doubt that it was a unlawful killing, then they should acquit So the defense must make the claim, but all they have to establish is reasonable doubt.

 

[identikit]

If I had a gun pointed at me I would scream for my life. I know this to be true, because I have had a gun pointed at me and I did scream for my life. I have also been beaten up severely and I did not scream for my life.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an idiot.

Not in a legal sense, but in a real-world, logical and common-sense way.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent.

Question - not argument.How does a "self defense" defense change this? If he has to prove that the shooting was "self defense" doesn't that seem that the tables are turned and he is guilty until Zimmerman can demonstrate otherwise? And what is the level, both legally and practically required for this proof?

(I guess the big assumption here is that the prosecutors still needs to prove that under normal circumstances what happened would have been the "murder 2" crime, so my question is asked under that assumption being the case.)

I'm kind of lost at some of the legal experts comments here. Sometimes the legal analysis seems contradictory which I assume is simply because we just keep changing the assumptions involved. In simplistic layman's term is this case

[*]Prosecution try to prove that a crime happened ...

[*]...and that Zimmerman did it.

[*]Defense acknowledges that Zimmerman did it ...

[*]...and tries to prove it wasn't a crime because of self defense.

That many have speculated that the first part may be a hurdle that the prosecution won't be able to clear pretrial (pre jury trial) which would result in the case being tossed out. Is that true? If this makes it to a jury, would this hurdle be practically cleared (if not 100% legally)?

As a spectator what would give hints to how this will turn out, or is it all a crap shot right now?

He doesn't have to prove self-defense. All he has to do is claim self-defense and the prosecutor is required to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it wasn't self-defense.Edit: Zimmerman's burden is what they call a burden of production. He just has to provide some evidence. But he doesn't even have to prove his self-defense claim is more likely than not.

Thanks, I read other posts in such a way to suggest otherwise.So really Zimmerman's "self defense" claim simply needs to be "reasonable"? If it could be true to the jury, he met his burden?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The way this non lawyer understands it, if the self defense claim establishes reasonable doubt that it was a unlawful killing, then they should acquit So the defense must make the claim, but all they have to establish is reasonable doubt.

That is what Christo's latest reply seems to say.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Holy hell, the presumption is that he's innocent.

Question - not argument.How does a "self defense" defense change this? If he has to prove that the shooting was "self defense" doesn't that seem that the tables are turned and he is guilty until Zimmerman can demonstrate otherwise? And what is the level, both legally and practically required for this proof?

(I guess the big assumption here is that the prosecutors still needs to prove that under normal circumstances what happened would have been the "murder 2" crime, so my question is asked under that assumption being the case.)

I'm kind of lost at some of the legal experts comments here. Sometimes the legal analysis seems contradictory which I assume is simply because we just keep changing the assumptions involved. In simplistic layman's term is this case

[*]Prosecution try to prove that a crime happened ...

[*]...and that Zimmerman did it.

[*]Defense acknowledges that Zimmerman did it ...

[*]...and tries to prove it wasn't a crime because of self defense.

That many have speculated that the first part may be a hurdle that the prosecution won't be able to clear pretrial (pre jury trial) which would result in the case being tossed out. Is that true? If this makes it to a jury, would this hurdle be practically cleared (if not 100% legally)?

As a spectator what would give hints to how this will turn out, or is it all a crap shot right now?

He doesn't have to prove self-defense. All he has to do is claim self-defense and the prosecutor is required to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it wasn't self-defense.Edit: Zimmerman's burden is what they call a burden of production. He just has to provide some evidence. But he doesn't even have to prove his self-defense claim is more likely than not.

when i watched the last bond hearing the guys that talk about the hearing for the tv said thatthe procecution purposely didnt enter any of zimmermans statements to police as evidence forcing zimmerman to take the stand in his defense down the road, is this a possibility?

 

[jon_mx]

when i watched the last bond hearing the guys that talk about the hearing for the tv said thatthe procecution purposely didnt enter any of zimmermans statements to police as evidence forcing zimmerman to take the stand in his defense down the road, is this a possibility?

This was your exact claim...

WRONG. Watched the whole bond hearing today and they said in a self defense case its on the person who claims self defense to prove it was. He will have to get on the stand and testify in his own defense .Thats why the state has purposly not enetered zimmermans statements and interviews into evidence.

And when I called you on it.....you responded

so you`re saying you know more than the state prosecuter who`s trying this case? Did you watch the bond hearing ? I didnt think so.

Of course there was also a lot of Mad Sweeney noise in there which contributed nothing, but I think you were incorrect in what you heard.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

when i watched the last bond hearing the guys that talk about the hearing for the tv said thatthe procecution purposely didnt enter any of zimmermans statements to police as evidence forcing zimmerman to take the stand in his defense down the road, is this a possibility?

This was your exact claim...

WRONG. Watched the whole bond hearing today and they said in a self defense case its on the person who claims self defense to prove it was. He will have to get on the stand and testify in his own defense .Thats why the state has purposly not enetered zimmermans statements and interviews into evidence.

And when I called you on it.....you responded

so you`re saying you know more than the state prosecuter who`s trying this case? Did you watch the bond hearing ? I didnt think so.

Of course there was also a lot of Mad Sweeney noise in there which contributed nothing, but I think you were incorrect in what you heard.

ummm...ya...and now im just asking christo if what i heard could be in fact correct

 

[Christo]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

 

[jon_mx]

when i watched the last bond hearing the guys that talk about the hearing for the tv said thatthe procecution purposely didnt enter any of zimmermans statements to police as evidence forcing zimmerman to take the stand in his defense down the road, is this a possibility?

This was your exact claim...

WRONG. Watched the whole bond hearing today and they said in a self defense case its on the person who claims self defense to prove it was. He will have to get on the stand and testify in his own defense .Thats why the state has purposly not enetered zimmermans statements and interviews into evidence.

And when I called you on it.....you responded

so you`re saying you know more than the state prosecuter who`s trying this case? Did you watch the bond hearing ? I didnt think so.

Of course there was also a lot of Mad Sweeney noise in there which contributed nothing, but I think you were incorrect in what you heard.

ummm...ya...and now im just asking christo if what i heard could be in fact correct

The discussion started that I pointed out that the prosecution has to have probable cause that it was not self-defense....you said I was wrong and you made the point about was the defense's burden of proof it was self-defense. However, all the defense has to do is make the claim and establish reasonable doubt. The prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. You were wrong in the point you made.

 

[jon_mx]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

Even if they can establish that the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape was Zimmerman's, can establish Zimmerman had injuries inflicted by Martin, and have witnesses who will testify that there was a man on top beating another man? I think he probably should, but i don't think it is necessary.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

but thats a strategy on the states part to insure zimmerman has to by not enetering any statements made by zimmerman to the police , right?

 

[jon_mx]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

but thats a strategy on the states part to insure zimmerman has to by not enetering any statements made by zimmerman to the police , right?

With discovery the defense will get the police statements, so why can't the defense enter the statements as evidence?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

when i watched the last bond hearing the guys that talk about the hearing for the tv said thatthe procecution purposely didnt enter any of zimmermans statements to police as evidence forcing zimmerman to take the stand in his defense down the road, is this a possibility?

This was your exact claim...

WRONG. Watched the whole bond hearing today and they said in a self defense case its on the person who claims self defense to prove it was. He will have to get on the stand and testify in his own defense .Thats why the state has purposly not enetered zimmermans statements and interviews into evidence.

And when I called you on it.....you responded

so you`re saying you know more than the state prosecuter who`s trying this case? Did you watch the bond hearing ? I didnt think so.

Of course there was also a lot of Mad Sweeney noise in there which contributed nothing, but I think you were incorrect in what you heard.

ummm...ya...and now im just asking christo if what i heard could be in fact correct

The discussion started that I pointed out that the prosecution has to have probable cause that it was not self-defense....you said I was wrong and you made the point about was the defense's burden of proof it was self-defense. However, all the defense has to do is make the claim and establish reasonable doubt. The prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. You were wrong in the point you made.

honestly im not sure there is a wrong or right here. I know what i heard and it makes sense. I know they said he would have to take the stand at a stand your ground hearing and anything he says at that will be used against him at a trial.The state really wants him on that stand .

 

[Charlie Frown]

Zimmerman was arrested due to public outcry due to a lack of a proper investigation and the fact that the man that died was black resulting in the city arresting Zimmerman to save face. You can think he was arrested due to a preponderance of evidence against him but I am not seeing it yet. I know when I was assaulted the police did 0 to investigate it, I think they were totally at fault for not doing a proper investigation in this case which is why so many people resigned/fired from their positions.So far the only law I have seen the Zimmerman's break is lying about how much money they had collected to get a lower bail set.

Truth hurts but this is

 

[Christo]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

Even if they can establish that the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape was Zimmerman's, can establish Zimmerman had injuries inflicted by Martin, and have witnesses who will testify that there was a man on top beating another man? I think he probably should, but i don't think it is necessary.

What matters is his belief that he was acting in self defense when he shot Martin.Heeeeeeelllllllllppppp! HHhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllpppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111I don't actually need help right now.

 

[TexanFan02]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

Even if they can establish that the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape was Zimmerman's, can establish Zimmerman had injuries inflicted by Martin, and have witnesses who will testify that there was a man on top beating another man? I think he probably should, but i don't think it is necessary.

What matters is his belief that he was acting in self defense when he shot Martin.Heeeeeeelllllllllppppp! HHhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllpppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

I don't actually need help right now.

Because I have a gun.

 

[Christo]

I've been saying all along that he's going to have to get on the stand at trial.

but thats a strategy on the states part to insure zimmerman has to by not enetering any statements made by zimmerman to the police , right?

With discovery the defense will get the police statements, so why can't the defense enter the statements as evidence?

Those statements are hearsay.