Trayvon Martin Case

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1) Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life,
2)survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight,
3)and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...


the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

It'll come down to the concealed bigotry of the jury and the sales pitch by the attorneys.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

Creeped out, not scared. Remember that, it's key to why he's dead.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

Yes, because everyone has 100% perfect recall of stressful events. From the trial: Surdyka said she heard cries for help and then multiple gunshots: "Pop, pop, pop. ... <Riiiiiight!>

Originally Posted by over the mountain

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do?

Due to the frustrations of past experience and quite lawfully, he follows Martin. It's a ****ing dispatcher, not a cop.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

So he shouldn't confirm where he's at? Odd attitude.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

Your bias showing, nothing more.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . .

Thankfully we were spared any biased testimony from the Prosecution. /sarc

Originally Posted by over the mountain

there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

<facepalm>

Originally Posted by over the mountain

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

How does that hold up to logic? Did you watch the OJ trial? Jurors get shit wrong all the time.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed
Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

No. You're wrong and you're being intentionally ignorant. Read what the Florida caselaw says.