George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[AngelWings444]

No she says AT. Go back and watch.. then she corrects herself.

She says AT.

Are you stating this as fact or opinion. She said ALMOST! Right before she says the Get Off statement. I heard it last night. Maybe you are talking about a different part of her testimony but she 100% said ALMOST at the part I am referencing. Since I'm not linking right now...will later, I"ll put this cow here. :moo:

 

[Isabelle]

I got a root canal. Now you believe me? IMO

You definitely need to find another dentist. I've had about 7 root canals and it was a piece of cake. Technique is very important and I have been to sloppy careless dentists, but fired them all. OT, I know, sorry.

 

[bellaalex]

I love the argument that TM was just coming from the store where he bought Skittles, and Iced Tea. If he had been out scoring drugs, would that make a difference? The Skittles and Iced Tea is just a ploy to make TM look like a 12 year old. If I worked in that 7/11 store, and I waited on him that night, I would have been scared. It took him forever to fish out the change to pay for his purchase. While I'm watching that video, I keep thinking he could be getting ready to pull out a weapon, rather than change. Robbery would have been a real thought in my mind. I don't care whether the person was black, white, or red, I would have been scared. Yes, the hoodie made me feel that he could be trying to hide his identity. Again, it doesn't matter the race. I would have been afraid.

If you watch the entire video there is something going on OUTSIDE the store with TM and 2 other people. It appears he is buying something from them. He did take 45 minutes to walk home one mile so something besides walking and talking was going on. IMO MOO

 

[4Jacy]

I love the argument that TM was just coming from the store where he bought Skittles, and Iced Tea. If he had been out scoring drugs, would that make a difference? The Skittles and Iced Tea is just a ploy to make TM look like a 12 year old. If I worked in that 7/11 store, and I waited on him that night, I would have been scared. It took him forever to fish out the change to pay for his purchase. While I'm watching that video, I keep thinking he could be getting ready to pull out a weapon, rather than change. Robbery would have been a real thought in my mind. I don't care whether the person was black, white, or red, I would have been scared. Yes, the hoodie made me feel that he could be trying to hide his identity. Again, it doesn't matter the race. I would have been afraid.

Perhaps the fact that it was raining would have been taken into consideration, and his hood was up to offer TM protection. MO

:banghead:

 

[ShadyLady]

What it comes down to is the state has to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Not followed him. Not profiled him. Not wannabe copped him or whatever. Not that the situation could have been avoided if he dd not exit his car. The state has to prove that Zimmerman attacked. Initiated violence. And I can't see where they came anywhere near that.

And nothing wrong with "offender profiling". Heck, it's not even against the law for private citizens to racially profile.

From wiki:


Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and is illegal in many jurisdictions. It should not confused offender profiling which is an genuine investigative tool.

imo

 

[cityslick]

Thank you. This is what troubles me the most, I'm very disappointed that TM, the victim, has not only suffered from a lack of sympathy, he had been made out to be a malicious attacker when there's NO EVIDENCE he had even hit GZ. IMO.

GZ had some MINOR injuries, period. TM had *ZERO* DNA of GZ on him, showing that he didn't punch, slam or tussle with GZ. Yet most insist that the lack of this CRUCIAL evidence means *NOTHING* and continue to state as a FACT that TM slammed and punched GZ. IMO.

Finally, it isn't enough for self-defense if a fight or an attack takes place. The defense *MUST* prove *REASONABLE FEAR* for one's life. GZ's tiny injuries will not lead any reasonable person to believe that GZ would have died or sustained great bodily harm *IMMINENTLY* when he shot to kill TM.

These words are very important - *REASONABLE* FEAR FOR *IMMINENT* DEATH/GREAT BODILY HARM.

It is not enough that you're being attacked in some manner as fights happen all the time, every minute, everywhere in the world. If the fears are not reasonable, if great bodily harm is not imminent, then there's no legal, legitimate basis for KILLING another person citing "self-defense". IMO Otherwise, anyone can bring a gun along at any fight and then kill the other citing "self-defense", GZ being acquitted would set a chilling precedent. IMO.



GZ had every right to fight, as did TM, but did he have the right to kill?

:twocents:MOO

Why do mistruth's continue to be posted? The defense does not have to prove anything. And even then, I believe that have proved that GZ was on his back and TM was on top of him. So right there GZ was in a vulnerable position.

 

[RANCH]

REALLY effective. And I liked the way he "inoculated" against the rebuttal that is to follow.

All the evidence is in, there is NO MORE evidence to be presented, if you aren't convinced now, then you have made your decision. Words to that affect. Don't be swayed by sympathy, or yelling.

IMHO

I don't think that all of the yelling the state did will make up for a lack of evidence. MOO.

 

[sacrablue]

Im not saying I don't believe you but I have had more than one root canal, Wisdom teeth extractions and have never looked like I have been beaten up like GZ was.

And it was painful. I had a root canal in my front tooth.3 times.

And I had it done in Miami. The parking lot was full of criminals trying to break into my car. IMO

 

[PaperDoll]

IDK. Everyone wants to go on and on about Trayvon's size, his strength, his football experience, his history of fighting, then expect us to look at George's injuries of these tiny scratches that were scabbed over by the end of the night (IMO) and believe that they were caused by this large kid/adult slamming his head into the concrete and punching him repeatedly in the face. That just does not fly, IMHO. I know, no evidence it DIDN'T happen so just take George's word for it, blah blah blah. But it defies logic.

IMO, this should be manslaughter. IMHO MOO OMO AMO and so forth.

I agree. GZ put himself in this situation from beginning to end and I believe he's not being truthful in all that happened. It's easy to leave the out key parts that could incriminate him when he's giving his statements. His version changes of what happened that night. The State in their closing make some good points that I wasn't aware of. I believe GZ went back to look for TM just by the State pointing it out in his closing.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thank you. This is what troubles me the most, I'm very disappointed that TM, the victim, has not only suffered from a lack of sympathy, he had been made out to be a malicious attacker when there's NO EVIDENCE he had even hit GZ. IMO.

GZ had some MINOR injuries, period. TM had *ZERO* DNA of GZ on him, showing that he didn't punch, slam or tussle with GZ. Yet most insist that the lack of this CRUCIAL evidence means *NOTHING* and continue to state as a FACT that TM slammed and punched GZ. IMO.

Finally, it isn't enough for self-defense if a fight or an attack takes place. The defense *MUST* prove *REASONABLE FEAR* for one's life. GZ's tiny injuries will not lead any reasonable person to believe that GZ would have died or sustained great bodily harm *IMMINENTLY* when he shot to kill TM.

These words are very important - *REASONABLE* FEAR FOR *IMMINENT* DEATH/GREAT BODILY HARM.

It is not enough that you're being attacked in some manner as fights happen all the time, every minute, everywhere in the world. If the fears are not reasonable, if great bodily harm is not imminent, then there's no legal, legitimate basis for KILLING another person citing "self-defense". IMO Otherwise, anyone can bring a gun along at any fight and then kill the other citing "self-defense", GZ being acquitted would set a chilling precedent. IMO.



GZ had every right to fight, as did TM, but did he have the right to kill?

:twocents:MOO

IMO and George knew it! that's why he claims Travon said, "you're going to die tonight"

 

[Mahouston69]

There was a recording played in court and all over the news last night where GZ, in his own words, states he is going BACK to get Trayvon. :twocents:

Yep. And Defense would have us believe if Trayvon went straight home at a sprints pace no harm would have come to him like a good boy.
That mentality scares me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Are you stating this as fact or opinion. She said ALMOST! Right before she says the Get Off statement. I heard it last night. Maybe you are talking about a different part of her testimony but she 100% said ALMOST at the part I am referencing. Since I'm not linking right now...will later, I"ll put this cow here. :moo:

No. It is fact. AS referenced by another poster just minutes ago.

And also by her testimony. IT is a fact that is what she said.

Not opinion

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/new...e-to-start-talking-to-him-on-the-phone-i.html

She was able to start talking to him on the phone. "I asked him where he at, and he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house."

It is a fact that is what he told her.

 

[bellaalex]

There has been tremendous lack of sympathy for GZ, not TM!!!!!

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Thank you. This is what troubles me the most, I'm very disappointed that TM, the victim, has not only suffered from a lack of sympathy, he had been made out to be a malicious attacker when there's NO EVIDENCE he had even hit GZ. IMO.

GZ had some MINOR injuries, period. TM had *ZERO* DNA of GZ on him, showing that he didn't punch, slam or tussle with GZ. Yet most insist that the lack of this CRUCIAL evidence means *NOTHING* and continue to state as a FACT that TM slammed and punched GZ. IMO.

Finally, it isn't enough for self-defense if a fight or an attack takes place. The defense *MUST* prove *REASONABLE FEAR* for one's life. GZ's tiny injuries will not lead any reasonable person to believe that GZ would have died or sustained great bodily harm *IMMINENTLY* when he shot to kill TM.

These words are very important - *REASONABLE* FEAR FOR *IMMINENT* DEATH/GREAT BODILY HARM.

It is not enough that you're being attacked in some manner as fights happen all the time, every minute, everywhere in the world. If the fears are not reasonable, if great bodily harm is not imminent, then there's no basis for KILLING another person citing "self-defense". IMO


GZ had every right to fight, as did TM, but did he have the right to kill?

:twocents:MOO

When it is self defense, the defendent is the victim. Yes Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin if that was the only way he could protect himself. This is not a world where the strongest wins. People have been beaten to death, it is a common way to murder weaker people.
:twocents::twocents::twocents:MOO:twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[raisincharlie]

MOM did not talk about lesser charges??

No need to if the jury finds the self defense argument to be so.

Here is something I never thought I would say let alone believe -darn good job by the defense lawyer throughout the trial. Refreshing that the defense team appeared to be honest and trustworthy, not sure I have ever seen that before. Disappointing that a prosecution team would be the ones to present falsehoods, innuendo and outright misrepresentation of witness statements to the jury.

How are you doing Rose ? :seeya:

 

[cityslick]

Are you stating this as fact or opinion. She said ALMOST! Right before she says the Get Off statement. I heard it last night. Maybe you are talking about a different part of her testimony but she 100% said ALMOST at the part I am referencing. Since I'm not linking right now...will later, I"ll put this cow here. :moo:

I've already linked where he told her he was behind his daddy's house.

 

[faefrost]

If you watch the entire video there is something going on OUTSIDE the store with TM and 2 other people. It appears he is buying something from them. He did take 45 minutes to walk home one mile so something besides walking and talking was going on. IMO MOO

Which would explain why the judge would not allow the unread acted video, and very little discussion about it.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'll bet weak unfit men everywhere are rejoicing with this presentation. Hey, I can start a fight, lose it, and shoot the guy and it's legal.

Unbelievable the world has come to this.

IMO

 

[MeeBee]

There has been tremendous lack of sympathy for GZ, not TM!!!!!

I think there's been a lot of sympathy for GZ. IMO. He has a lot of supporters.

 

[AngelWings444]

Facts not in evidence.

Facts? According to you, right? It's really not fair to the original poster to completely ignore their post, and continually put "facts not in evidence". We all see the "evidence" with a different view. Everyone is entitled to interpret the "facts" as they see it. I see the facts different from you, that doesn't make you right, nor does it make me right. The jurors have to sort out the "facts" as they see them too.