ShadyLady
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 3,706
- Reaction score
- 5,116
He also called him the N word and he's not black .
And this helps your side how?
He also called him the N word and he's not black .
Not trying to one up you, Zoe Bogart, but I lived in Kennesaw, GA, where it has been the law to own a firearm since the 1980s.. Virtually crime free city...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
'Kennesaw It's The LAW'..
In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families".[3] The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession ordinance.[4]
But, Trayvon was NOT committing a crime. He was walking home from the store. He is a boy, certainly not a girl. :facepalm: He was barely 17 (by 3 weeks) and 5'11". Those are the facts. If this was my child, I would refer to him as a child, kid, boy...there is nothing wrong with it. Age is relevant in that Trayvon was a kid who was simply walking home from the store. IMO
I was just curious what people's opinions are. I know you can never know but we have some waitin' to do so let's chat! IMO. LOL, it's ok y'all don't have to answer but I am really curious what everyone thinks.
If I were a juror... I'd toss out anything Zimmerman claimed to have happened because he's a proven liar. That would leave me with a dead child and the phone calls.
I'd find him guilty.
Why just Florida? This stuff can and does happen everywhere.
You asked for opinions.
George.Zimmerman.Is.Innocent.
The defense has the obligation to provide a prima facia case in support of self defense. They do not have to prove that it was self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense met their burden. The prosecution still has to prove that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that in a self defense case the defense has some burden of proof and must put forth an affirmative defense in no way diminishes the prosecutions burden of proof.
The defense has said it was self defense. They have provided clear third party evidence and testimony of that. Not the least of which was a steady stream of prosecution witnesses such as the initial investigating Law Enforcement. A reasonable case for self defense has been made.
Whereas the prosecutions case seems to involve saying "Nuh uh!" And "Wannabe Cop!" A lot, but without showing any clear timeline or sequence of events or even putting forth a full theory of the crime.
I don't like this. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't like that he killed a teen because he made bad assumptions. But those are matters for a civil court examine a question of wrongful death. Here in this criminal court the Prosecution has not established their criminal case beyond a reasonable or even mildly half assed doubt to my eyes. They have pretty much done the defenses work for them.
But as many posters here keep reiterating, we have to consider only facts and legality. So GZ 'thinking' TM was an adult based on size is intuition or speculation. Just the facts ma'am. Fact is that TM was a child. So calling him a child is a correct legal term. It's not grandstanding. MOO
It is reasonable to believe he was striking Zimmerman because of the facial injuries. What else would pounding downwards mean, especially if the person on the bottom has a bashed up head?
IMO:twocents::twocents:
Point is also that there are teens that are dangerous and out of control with NO respect for LE, much less adults.
Time to treat them as adults. IMO
He would have had to be at the men's heads to tell if Z's head was being bashed against the concrete. However, Z has facial and head injuries that he didn't have when he left for the store. There is no way Z's face could look like that if he was being pushed downwards, but the back of his head could have been bashed up with violent pushing.As I mentioned in a previous thread, those could very well had been pushing and shoving motions, or restraining and pushing back motions. It is extremely telling that JG changed his testimony under oath, it means he wasn't entirely certain that those were "pound and ground", but he could be sure they were "up and down". He also stated that he did not see the slamming into concrete part, nor did he see TM inflicting any injuries on GZ' head or pounding downwards. He just saw what he saw "up and down arm motions". Must be afraid of perjury. IMO.
I always thought the correct legal term for a person under 18 was Juvenile of course that is not as effective as "a child". JMO,MOO
But as many posters here keep reiterating, we have to consider only facts and legality. So GZ 'thinking' TM was an adult based on size is intuition or speculation. Just the facts ma'am. Fact is that TM was a child. So calling him a child is a correct legal term. It's not grandstanding. MOO
Although I hate predicting juries, my two cents on this one is that it will either be acquittal or hung. I think people are way too passionate on this case to compromise. Hung is very likely.
Just my opinion.
Yeah, I can't stand the sarcasm about the fruit drink and the skittles, as if they were deliberate "props" by a malice-filled , because it was a FACT that those were what TM had on him that night, NO MORE NO LESS. IMO.
If I were a juror... I'd toss out anything Zimmerman claimed to have happened because he's a proven liar. That would leave me with a dead child and the phone calls.
I'd find him guilty.
Hey neighbor, Peachtree City here.
Not in evidence. he knew where he lived and he said AT.. Not I can not find where I am...