George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #3

[JudyBolton]

Still doesn't mean he didn't start it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The state has testified in court that they could NOT prove who started it...so unless some surprise witness who was there surfaces, it will be a moot point.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes. I think the point is if the state can not prove GZ started it, Then they can not prove Murder.

 

[nnglas]

The state has testified in court that they could NOT prove who started it...so unless some surprise witness who was there surfaces, it will be a moot point.

It's not a moot point if people keep repeating GZ was being beaten therefore he was defending himself, if he was the aggressor. Because if he was the aggressor then TM was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corundogs]

I will never understand this type of questioning.

Yes, it could have been someone having a fight on a cell phone...

Except we know it wasn't. LOL!! So yes, it could have been a hell of a lot of things...but she saw things as they unfolded.

It just makes no sense to me. I am sure there is a really good explanation for it, I just don't find it helpful.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I will never understand this type of questioning.

Yes, it could have been someone having a fight on a cell phone...

Except we know it wasn't. LOL!! So yes, it could have been a hell of a lot of things...but she saw things as they unfolded.

It just makes no sense to me. I am sure there is a really good explanation for it, I just don't find it helpful.

It goes to the fact that she has no idea whose voice belonged to whom and that she has no idea of the idea what the loudness was about.

It has no context.

 

[iluvmua]

It's not a moot point if people keep repeating GZ was being beaten therefore he was defending himself, if he was the aggressor. Because if he was the aggressor then TM was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't know who is the aggressor, But everything to this point backs up what GZ says happened to him.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's not a moot point if people keep repeating GZ was being beaten therefore he was defending himself, if he was the aggressor. Because if he was the aggressor then TM was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if they can not prove that it was GZ they can not prove murder. That is the point. It does not matter if they can not prove it.

 

[corundogs]

Her timing issue...well we know it couldn't have been even 5 minutes, right? Only about 2 minutes between GZ hanging up with 911, and the shot.

Am I remembering that correctly?

 

[JudyBolton]

It's not a moot point if people keep repeating GZ was being beaten therefore he was defending himself, if he was the aggressor. Because if he was the aggressor then TM was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is true - what I meant was in the context of the trial and the evidence. The State already knows what their witnesses will say (presumably) and what their forensic evidence says and in light of that - the prosecution said they could not prove who started the altercation.

 

[twall]

Are all of the previous non-emergency call GZ made coming in or a select few? I recall hearing approx. 5 of them during the hearing so was curious how many are coming in?

 

[especiallyheather]

Yes. I think the point is if the state can not prove GZ started it, Then they can not prove Murder.

I think that this is the key to this case. In my opinion, as of right now, I would say that Zimmerman, although he made very poor choices that night and it lead to the death of another human being, he did not do any thing illegal. Does that mean that I like him, absolutely not. Does that mean I am sold on his innocence and cannot be persuaded by facts regarding this case, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

What I am trying to say is that we have laws in this country for a reason. There are certain standards that have to met for each degree (in this case, 2nd degree murder) If those standards are not met, as much as we dislike the person charged, the standards have not been met and the person is not guilty as charged.

I say we all listen to the FACTS presented in this case before we form a solid opinion of guilt and innocence.
:moo:

 

[MeeBee]

This is a state witness though and showing your are biased against the defendant does nothing to help the state. The jury would probably dismiss your testimony of being biased, especially if you just now remembered a detail that just happens to be somewhat important.

Unfortunately, as a juror, I would probably have to disregard her testimony, even though I didn't find her tetimony to particularly favor one side over the other, although this left to right thing seems important to some for some reason.

 

[corundogs]

This defense lawyer just irks me for some reason. He makes the strangest facial expressions!

 

[nnglas]

That is true - what I meant was in the context of the trial and the evidence. The State already knows what their witnesses will say (presumably) and what their forensic evidence says and in light of that - the prosecution said they could not prove who started the altercation.

I get your meaning about them not being able to prove who was the aggressor, My comment was about GZ being beaten and therefore was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This defense lawyer just irks me for some reason. He makes the strangest facial expressions!

I hear you.. I just listen with Websleuths up.. It helps me hear things better from witnesses and lawyers and not get distracted..



He irked me in opening but he is doing a great job with the witnesses.

 

[iluvmua]

I get your meaning about them not being able to prove who was the aggressor, My comment was about GZ being beaten and therefore was defending himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was beaten and he was defending himself. It's very very obvious this is what happened.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think that this is the key to this case. In my opinion, as of right now, I would say that Zimmerman, although he made very poor choices that night and it lead to the death of another human being, he did not do any thing illegal. Does that mean that I like him, absolutely not. Does that mean I am sold on his innocence and cannot be persuaded by facts regarding this case, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

What I am trying to say is that we have laws in this country for a reason. There are certain standards that have to met for each degree (in this case, 2nd degree murder) If those standards are not met, as much as we dislike the person charged, the standards have not been met and the person is not guilty as charged.

I say we all listen to the FACTS presented in this case before we form a solid opinion of guilt and innocence.
:moo:

I think this case is all about poor choices on both sides. I think both made mistakes.. But I think that lends to a Manslaughter charge not murder 2.

 

[KMouse]

"everything happened so quickly and I was so nervous".

 

[corundogs]

How could she have been on the phone with 911...when she told them she heard a shot?

There was no shot heard on her call.

 

[cityslick]

This defense lawyer just irks me for some reason. He makes the strangest facial expressions!

I think he's more down to earth in the way he talks, knock knock jokes aside. He's certainly not aggressive or threatening.