This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Two Cents is 100% correct.
Sorry you feel this way. I don't classify you in the same category as Mr. Two Cents.
I'm attending a Gamblers Anonymous meeting at the Aria starting next Tuesday night.
May not be politically correct but there is nothing in my post that is incorrect.
I asked these questions earlier, but I didn't get a response: How high must your degree of belief be in a person's guilt for you to vote guilty? What's your subjective probability that GZ is guilty of murder 2? Manslaughter? I'm mostly interested in the answer to the first question, and I hope that others will chime in.
For me personally, reasonable doubt has to be removed. Because nobody knows what happened during the fight between the two of them, there is always reasonable doubt. George Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon Martin if he (Zimmerman) feared for his life. Now I don't believe that happened, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Thus, I could never convict Zimmerman and this trial probably never should have taken place.
Can this report be true?timschochet said:
I will just call her out for what she is. A fat ### wench.
What is mind boggling to me is how can you even think it was or was not self defense. Not a single person knows this!!!!!
West is only standing up for his client, most attorneys would do that, especially when their life is on the line.
And yet she is less biased than judge Kenneth Lester who had to be removed from the case. Can't they find one decent judge who can at least pretend to be impartial?
Here is your problem with Z acting as part of his neighborhood. Martin was a member of that neighborhood since his parents lived there. So unless M was doing something illegal which he was not, Z had no business of getting out of his car and attempting to confront M. We will never know who started the fight you think it was M, but I equally think it was Z. And guess what there is no proof either way to say who started the fight. Was Z getting his a$$ kicked and then shot M, yes. And that is why he will most likely get away with killing M.
The rioters are currently coiled springs ready to pounce. They are keeping a low profile but they are watching and waiting. Hoping for that acquittal so they can spring into action and get that new TV.
Probably correct. Back before the smartphone craze, I would say we could have full scale riots. Nowadays you could stop a riot in it's tracks if you could send out a text message to every smartphone in the area. They would all instantly stop and look at their device and start punching buttons with their thumbs as fast as they could. An example of the text would be 'you are a ####### idiot'.
Zimmerman DID NOT confron Martin. Why does everyone just make up facts.
No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.Zimmerman DID NOT confron Martin. Why does everyone just make up facts.
You mean the way you are making up the statement above? No one here knows how it went down and you can't just take Zimmerman's account as truth. He's certainly not going to say 'I confronted Martin'.Zimmerman DID NOT confron Martin. Why does everyone just make up facts.
Speaking to Manslaughter-
Most analysts I have heard agreed that both could use the self-defense if Zimmerman would have been beaten to death before he shot TM. I agree with them, works both ways.
And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)
If George had been beaten to death, he couldn't have used the gun. (Dead men don't shoot.)
I think those analysts are full of it. For one thing, the jury would have to find someone to be the aggressor, and that person would have a duty to retreat if at all feasible. But secondly, Martin would face the same hurdle as Zimmerman. There has to be a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. I don't think being followed or even being confronted would meet that standard unless the weapon was unholstered or something.
Got it....and I stated that it was MY perspective. The reason being, if I HAD to call the police 6-7 times a year, in that first year, I'd be thinking about not living there any longer. However, he seems comfortable there...something just doesn't add up to me. That's all.
If there is rioting, I don't believe it will be limited to blacks. For the most part, the establishment (NAACP, Youth Movement Leaders, Ministers, etc.) are calling for peaceful protesting. The rioters (if any; although I expect some random rioting) will be opportunists. That is why I believe there will also be non-blacks rioting. It will be people looking to take advantage of a terrible situation.
I never really saw the correlation some make (not saying you are) on how Z calling 47 times points to him being guilty of murder 2. Yes, he may have been overzealous, but its way too much of a stretch to say it supports his murder 2 actions.
Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?
It's an out of court statement, not made under oath, and you want it admitted into evidence. That's textbook hearsay, idiot.Hearsay
Actually, Zimmerman had said in one of his interviews that TM put his hand near his waist as if to signify that he was carrying a weapon and Zimmerman just thought he was posing. He didn't believe TM was carrying, he just thought he was acting as if he was carrying.
Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?
"You have a problem?"
Yeah, this is the type of stuff that makes this thread so painful for lawyers. Listen, I get that it's kind of douchey to pull rank on stuff like this. But when you confidently make assertions about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, it's really frustrating to read. There are all kinds of subjects in this trial where JoJo's opinion matters every bit as much as Christo's. The credibility of witnesses, for instance. But on questions about the rules of evidence, a lay opinion based upon what you regard as "fair" is completely useless. .It's an out of court statement, not made under oath, and you want it admitted into evidence. That's textbook hearsay, idiot.Hearsay
You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?"You have a problem?"
Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"
There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?
