General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe prosecution has already proven Zimmerman's guilt
They've exposed lie after lie that Zimmerman told. His entire defense of being in fear of his life has been debunked.
1. He lied about his reason for getting out of his car
2. He lied about Trayvon jumping out of the bushes
3. He lied about having his head repeatedly smashed on the concrete (his injuries were insignificant)
4. He lied about not knowing about Stand Your Ground
5. He likely lied about Trayvon's last words (really, who says 'You got me' after being shot in the chest?)
If he is found not guilty, it's only because the prosecution did a shitty job driving home these lies, and because of the incompetence of the Sanford PD who didn't treat this as a potential murder from the beginning.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Guilty gun fuck.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)The prosecution opening was so powerful, I can't
imagine they won't better it in closing.
And I've been wondering also if the prosecution has
been saving its best for cross examination of the
defense witnesses. I hope it is incisive and
unsettling to the defense.. ok I'm dreaming..
JI7
(89,259 posts)
MH1
(17,600 posts)or just incompetence?
or does anyone think the prosecution is doing a super job of prosecuting the case?
I haven't watched all that much, but from the commentary it sounds like they aren't doing a great job, and I started to wonder if they just don't really want to win this case. I wonder if anyone else is thinking that.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)They've allowed the defense to go on and on asking speculative questions of non-experts with no objections and worse, not bringing any of that up on recross. They've also allowed streams of answered questions over and over again without objecting, Bernie has several times mistakenly referred to Martin as "the defendant" never realized it and never corrected himself. Just making that mistake puts into the jurors' minds that Martin IS the defendant.
The worst mistake Bernie made in my opinion was allowing O'Mara to run through a stream of speculative medical questions to Serino concerning the blood from Z's nose by saying it was possible that no blood whatsoever exited from his nose after he was punched because at some point thereafter he was on his back thereby erroneously explaining for the jury that it was perfectly plausible that this was what happened and why Martin had not a speck of blood nor DNA from Z on any part of his hands, that all this blood would have run down his throat causing him to be afraid that he'd drown or choke to death on it, and Bernie never once objected to ANY of that questioning nor did he address it on re-cross. In fact, on re-cross all he said was "It could be raining outside right now, right?", Serino says "Yes," and Bernie says "and that would be pure speculation on your part, right?", and Serino replies "Yes."
What. The. Fuck. By not objecting to that entire line of questions in the first place when O'Mara started asking them (and they would have been sustained as speculation especially since Serino is not a medical expert) Bernie allowed the jury to have that in their minds, and they now can use it as a plausible excuse that a) there was no blood on Martin's hands because no blood whatsoever had been able to come out of Z's nose, and b) that Z had legitimate reason to fear of choking on or "drowning" in blood that may or may not have traveled down the back of his throat!
Not even a brand new attorney on his first case would have done something so epically stupid. And now unless the prosecution can call a medical professional to testify about the blood from the nose and what it most likely did or did not do they are stuck with jurors using that line of questions as a plausible reason for both a and b when they likely would never have thought of it in the first place had Bernie not LET O'Mara go through that line of questioning by fucking objecting to it as he should have. I could spit on him for totally falling down on the job with this in particular.
Worse than anything else though - and for the love of all that's holy PLEASE someone correct me if I somehow missed this - never did the prosecution bring up how impossible it would have been for Z to get to his gun and so quickly with Martin straddling him with his knees up near Z's armpits because with Martin's thighs pressed against Z's body (and how Z himself explained how Martin could have discovered the existence of the gun) how he could get his arm over Martin's thigh and somehow underneath his butt to get to his gun when he has normal sized arms that aren't capable of such a maneuver. That right THERE says that Z did not still have his gun in his holster - he could not have gotten to it and certainly not so quickly with the positions the two were in. It's not physically possible unless somehow Martin straddled Z with a "wide stance" allowing Z to pass his hand between his body and Martin's thigh, yet even Z says that Martin's thighs were pressed against him.
If Martin had felt that gun with his thigh is there any way on earth that he'd move his thigh himself to try to get to it rather than continue to press his legs against Z's body to keep HIM from getting to it? In no way would I believe that Martin moved his thigh pressed against an object he may likely not have realized was a gun in the first place. Because of all this there is no logical reason to believe that Z's gun was still in his holster at all and that he long since already had it out and in his hand. And if he had it out and in his hand Martin had every reason to pound the crap out of Zimmerman and try to keep that gun away from him so he wouldn't be shot with it.
I hate the idea that the prosecutions terrible job so far is intentional and prefer to believe that they just don't give a rip. However, their behavior has been so bad that I can't escape the possibility that it is intentional. I'm having a VERY hard time why seasoned prosecutors (particularly Bernie who has a long and impressive record) are fucking up their case like amateurs that never went to one single law school class. They HAVE a ton of evidence are are NOT making anything clear about it, and they are allowing the defense sooooo much leeway you have to wonder whenever one of the defense attorneys stands up they leave the courtroom entirely and just let them have at it.
MH1
(17,600 posts)I haven't had time to pay such close attention but your response covers a lot of things that I've heard and trouble me.
"just don't give a rip" is a generous suggestion that perhaps is part of it. I agree it is an ugly idea that they might be blowing the case intentionally. But I have to point out, that in my own job, even when I'm given a task I'm not the least bit interested in, or even think is a bad idea based on what I know of the situation, once it's assigned to me I try to do it correctly. Because I'm a professional. It's hard to believe that an experienced professional with a record of competence could do such a bad job without at least a thought that they ought to bother to do it right, and a conscious decision to just not bother.
If the lead prosecutor on this case ever runs for any elected office, he shouldn't have a prayer, if he blows this case. If there is any opportunity to pressure his bosses to fire him, if GZ walks completely he should definitely be fired and people should push for that.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)The only possible way I think they can overcome how horrendous they've been is by having a truly amazing stupendous closing a million times better than their opening was, and frankly, I just don't think they can. That almost never happens anyway except in the movies. The only case I can ever recall that happening was by a brilliant prosecutor who just didn't have much of anything to work with but did an incredible closing, and even then from the interviews with jurors afterward they were a hair away from acquittal until they really pondered one single point that the prosecutor brought up in his closing and little by little they turned.
I can't recall what the case was or who the prosecutor or defense counsel was. The only thing I can come close to identifying anything about it anymore was that whoever the defense counsel was said at the end of his closing something about God blessing the jurors, and the prosecutor objected which sent the defense attorney into a furious rant that made him look like a total git. It was a brilliant move by the prosecution though I don't think it had anything to do with why the jurors voted as they did. Still, never a good idea to leave a last impression with the jury that you're a loony bird with a hair trigger.
RGR375
(107 posts)is that they were handed a shit case and should have never went to trial. The law and the prosecutions own witnesses support zimmerman. Remember zimmerman did not have to have a single scratch on him the law does not require that. All the law Requires is a reasonable fear in the mind of the person at that time of death or great bodily harm. It Is very hard to prove that that person at that time was not in actual fear. The only reason they went to trial was they were afraid of riots and wanted to say hey we tried!
MH1
(17,600 posts)Just have to set it up so that you can claim "fear of my life!!1!" and that no one can prove otherwise, and you're all set for murder.
What a cheerful thought. Remind me to stay the f*ck out of Florida and any place where laws are like that.
Except I don't believe you're accurate.
I am sure if it had been Martin shooting and Zimmerman dead, The Law would have sure as hell found a problem with it.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)if he did not INITIATE THE CHASE,
like the 911 operator told him not to do,
he would not have had reason to fear.
And of course, tray's fears mean nothing, right?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He explained the head hitting thing.
1. Getting out of his car is not an element of the crime. It's not illegal to get out of his car.
2. Bushes? Is it important if there were bushes there? Not sure about that one. Sounds insignificant.
3. He didn't say his head was repeatedly smashed on concrete. (watch the video)
4. Don't know what this has to do w/anything. People aren't required to know the law. It's not an element of the crime.
5. There's no evidence he lied about TM's last words. (It does sound hokey...but again, you have to look at the EVIDENCE.)
Here are what I think are the elements of the crime he's accused of:
1. TM assaulted him
2. GZ was not physically assaulting TM at the time TM assaulted him
3. TM had no reason to be in fear for his life, at the time that TM assaulted him.
4. GZ tried to end the assault by using his body
5. GZ tried to end the assault by calling for help from a neighbor that he saw was looking
6. TM went for GZ's gun, which was showing because GZ's jacket had been pulled open during the fight
7. GZ grabbed the gun first, to prevent TM from getting it
8. Either GZ shot TM or the gun went off (I'm not sure about this one).
9. GZ did or did not intentionally shoot TM...or
10. GZ did or did not intentionally kill TM. (I don't think premeditation is required) (Notice that there's a difference between intent to shoot, and intent to kill)
If the jury finds that TM did not assault GZ, you can see by the list that the whole defense falls apart.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)He got out of the car to follow the Martin kid, no, wait it was to figure out what street he was on.
He did say that his head was being repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk although he has no injuries that would be consistent with that.
He also said he was being smothered though there is none of his blood on the Martin kid's hands.
He lied to Sean Hannity when he said he had never heard of stand your ground until after the shooting. (Lying to uncle Sean might not win him too much praise with the FOX noise crowd.)
The Martin boy was shot through the heart; it's a lie that he had a whole lot to say afterwards.
Basically, he's lied about pretty much the whole encounter.
We'll have to wait and see how the defense deals with all the lying.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)
They both reached for the...the gun the gun the gun the gun
Oh yeah, they both reached for the gun the gun the gun the gun the gun ...
Yeah.... that's a great defense.
But it is true that GZ defense rests on TM assaulting him. But then, it's not TM who is on trial.
It may not be illegal to get out of your car, but it is to stalk someone and kill them. Ignoring police advice implies a lot as to GZ state of mind. He's the one on trial so it's important.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the gun came out at the same time Zimmerman came out of his vehicle. He wasn't carrying it to counteract gravity.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I'm so going to use that line where ever I can squeeze it in for anything from now on. It's that fabulous!
Good thing I had just come back from peeing before I read this or I might have had to hairdryer the chair.
But anywho, I absolutely believe that the evidence thus far shows that he long since had his gun out whether when he got out of the car or when he first encountered Martin but long before any fight occurred. THere's no doubt in my mind that this whole fight happened because of that gun being out with Martin trying to fight for his life believing this loon that was chasing him around the complex was intent on killing him or kidnapping him or raping him or whatever horrible intent.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)you don't need to follow him. He says bulshit about they always get away with it. I translate that as....if I listen to you, this guy I have already judged as a thief or otherwise a bad dude will get away. NOT THIS TIME! I am Judge Dredd. This guy is goin' DOWN! WTF does this black boy think he is doing strolling through MY NEIGHBORHOOD GODDAMMIT!!
sofa king
(10,857 posts)That kid wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman had not defied the instructions of the police dispatcher. If he were just a shnook he'd be behind bars forever. But, as I explained below, he'll still get away Scot free.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)short version, Zimmerman was already out of his car following when he was told "we don't need you to do that".
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Of course, nothing in the chain of evidence presented will be able to dilute the simple fact that this guy made a series of assertive choices, all of which combined to put him in the position to kill someone.
Zimmerman pulled the chocks, unlocked the door, disengaged the emergency brake, and threw the transmission into neutral, and his defense is going to be, "I didn't push the truck to make it roll downhill." Because he picked the truck that was already on a hill, and rode with it once he managed to defeat every safety measure it had.
It doesn't matter anyway, he's still going free. But he ain't going free because he's not guilty.
John2
(2,730 posts)you are trying to protray. First of all, Trayvon Martin isn't being accused of a crime. George Zimmerman is accused of second degree murder. You are doing the same as his defense team.
1. There is no evidence Trayvon assaulted him, except Zimmerman's word.
2. You still have no evidence Trayvon Martin first assaulted Zimmerman and make the assumption Zimmerman did not attack Trayvon. Just what evidence do you have?
3. Again you have no evidence, Trayvon Martin wasn't in fear of his life. Zimmerman pursued Martin with a loaded gun. You again make this leap, Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman without any evidence.
4. Zimmermam tried to end the assault by using his body? What are you trying to say? That Zimmerman used his head and face, to defend himself?
5. Good did not say Zimmerman was calling for help 100%. Zimmerman also claimed there was no lights and Trayvon came out of no where. That puts Good's account in doubt. Good also never claimed that Zimmerman specifically called to him for help. Good would have to explain why he didn't help a guy getting beat to death and asking him for help. Good has also changed his testimony after talking to investigators, specifically detective Serino. There are also two witnesses, the prosecution has not called, concerning a boy and his mother about possible police misconduct favoring Zimmerman's account.
6. You have no evidence again, except taking Zimmerman's word for it. If he told you a cow jumped over the moon, you will probably believe it.
7. It is clear Zimmerman meant to kill or cause serious bodily injury to Martin. He had no hesitation in firing the trigger. The gun was already loaded and the safety off.
There is no evidence proving Zimmerman acted in self defense. There is evidence he committed murder.
1. there is a body and the murder weapon.
2. There is motive and intent. There is evidence Zimmerman falsely profiled Martin. His words alone, calling Martin a punk and they always get away, shows his obsession with not letting Martin get away. There are also 50 prior 911 calls, demonstrating Zimmerman had an obsession.
3. There is evidence Zimmerman left his vehicle and pursued Martin. He disregarded the 911 operator's instructions, and not only that, Zimmerman had instructions from community watch not to pursue people. he was also instructed, it was best not to carry weapons. He disobeyed all of that.
4. I don't know why the prosecution let the defense team get away with this, but the lack of injuries on trayvon in certain places, reveal Trayvon might have been the one fighting for his life. Zimmerman's injuries were only to the head and face. He had no injuries on his knuckles or hands. The first part of your body that you defend yourself with are your hands, not your head or face. The only evidence showing Zimmerman defended himself with was a gun. Deadly force is the last resort. There is no indication, Zimmerman used all means at his disposal. On the otherhand, there is evidence Trayvon used all means to defend himself, which was injuries on the hand.
5. A gun is a deadly weapon, that has tremendous force to cause bodily injury or instant death. Trayvon didn't have a gun to use on Zimmerman, so there was no equivalence in the fight. Zimmerman also knew he went after Trayvon with a gun on him. He did not expect Trayvon to have a gun. To say Zimmerman had no fault in killing this kid is laughable and sad at the same time. He also has no remorse, that he took Martin's life. And neither does his supporters, apparently.
BootinUp
(47,171 posts)DLevine
(1,788 posts)I hope Zimmerman gets convicted, but I worry that the jurors will buy into the defense team's smoke and mirrors.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)who have NO idea what really happened and lean on nothing more than conjecture, are so convinced of one side or another. you act like you can't possibly be wrong. that YOUR version of how it went down just HAD to be it when in fact you have no fucking clue. i have seen thread after thread after thread and in simply reading two or three posts in each of these threads it becomes apparent that everyone just HAS to be right and all of those other people are heartless bastards, crazy cracker supporters, gun-loving idiots or super-mega-over-the-top authoritarians... and the fun of it all is that it is just one big instance of group mental-masturbation.
sP
premium
(3,731 posts)I tried to point that out the other day and got flamed for it.
You are so correct, I'm reading these posts, not one of us has any clue of what really happened that rainy night, and yet, people here think they've got it all figured out, I've asked several people if they've contacted the DA's office with their conclusions because it seems they've cracked the case wide open.
What anyone here thinks is irrelevant, it's what the jury thinks, and if the prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then Zimmerman goes to prison, if they haven't, then Zimmerman goes free.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Here is what would persuade me to convict GZ:
The professor's testimony directly contradicts the answer GZ gave Sean Hannity about his knowledge of the SYG law. He said he didn't know anything about it. The professor in his college course on criminal litigation said SYG was well covered and GZ seemed very interested in it, even saying GZ was one of his "better students" in the class." He got an A in the course. If I were a juror I would want to hear that the professor's syllabus, TM's attendance record and his grades in the course have been checked out by the prosecution and those facts made available to the jury. Those are not things that can just be "asserted." They are either true or they are not.
I would also be persuaded if the prosecution made a thorough presentation of how GZ's story very carefully follows the scenario of how the SYG law would "fit" in this case. It sounds disturbingly like GZ had tailored his story to fit the guidelines of SYG. If the prosecution successfully does this, I would be disturbed enough to begin thinking about what a "depraved mind" would mean as applied in this case.
None of TM's DNA was found on GZ's gun or holster. Did GZ say that a struggle for the gun ensued? How did that struggle happen? I would want to hear again exactly what GZ said about their physical confrontation and what the physical evidence of that confrontation tells us.
I have not been following this trial closely but these are some very big issues that the defense is going to have trouble skirting around, IMO.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The bushes are relevant because Zimmerman claims Martin lept out of the bushes to attack him.
The lack of bushes would seem to indicate that is not true.
The rest of your story is just bullshit Zimmerman has been throwing around to try and get away with murder.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, the police would have arrived at 7:17 PM and found a living 17 year old, armed with a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona iced tea, dressed in a grey hoodie and khaki pants (CLASSIC night burglar attire).
Zimmerman told the detectives he was too afraid to simply roll down his window and talk to Martin when TM was, by GZ's own account, only a car length away from the truck. He's in the safety of his vehicle, armed, but he's too full of fear to say a word to the guy who he's already decided is "up to no good" and "on something."
Yet, a minute later, he's getting out of the truck to walk down a dark path (so dark, according to GZ, that he tried to turn on his flashlight to find his way back) so that he can give the police an address?
From what source did GZ summon the courage to leave his truck?
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)I'd really like to know because I've read and watched every minute of this trial, and there is no proof whatsoever that anything you claim is a fact in evidence.
Did you mean theory?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)He even demonstrated this with the motions of his hands.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)1. We don't know what his reason for getting out of the car was. We can guess, but really nobody except GZ does, and it's not really material to the case.
2. Whether it was bushes or darkness, doesn't matter. There's been no testimony from anyone who saw GZ attack first.
3. Nothing has contradicted the notion that the head was smashed on concrete. All medical testimony agrees that injuries are consistent with being hit on concrete. Repeatedly is debatable -- again, no contradictory evidence.
4. Knowing or not knowing the law is immaterial to the crime.
5. Where is the witness that heard different words out of TM's mouth?
I'm not saying GZ isn't wrong, I'm just saying the case against him is weak, and so far GZ's story hasn't been materially contradicted by solid evidence. This case is swimming in reasonable doubt.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But it GZ on trial here, not TM.
JI7
(89,259 posts)that's where trayvon came out of.
it does matter that the injury on the head does not show he was slammed 30 times .
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)showed a phtot of these two foot tall bushes and asked how anyone was going to hide behind them.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)They go to the credibility of the defendant. Zimmerman has been exposed in numerous lies, which damage his credibility.
Because Zimmerman killed Martin, he has to provide an affirmative defense. To justify the killing, he has to prove he was afraid for his life, and that he had good reason to fear for his life. Many of his exposed lies undermine his claim of fearing for his life. Furthermore, once a string of lies is exposed, why would anybody believe anything he says? He killed an innocent teenager and shows absolutely no remorse for it. He has motivation to say whatever he thinks will prevent conviction and jail. Every lie that is exposed undermines every other aspect of his story. And that makes it less and less likely that he killed Martin due to fear for his own life, but simply because he could. He is a remorseless killer.
* That his injuries were not severe in itself doesn't matter. Except that he was using the extent of his injuries as evidence as to why he feared for his life. That he *lied* about the extent of his injuries matters. Why did he lie about the extent? Because minor injuries means he had no real reason to fear for his life.
* Whether it was bushes or darkness in itself doesn't matter. Except he was using it to claim he was ambushed and that was a reason he feared for his life. That he *lied* about the claimed ambush makes the ambush itself in question, as well as his credibility. Why would he lie about being ambushed? Because the claimed ambush was intended to show why he feared for his life.
* There is no question there was minor injury to the back of his head. He made the claim that his head was repeatedly smashed into the concrete as evidence to why he feared for his life. That the extent of injury does not support having his head repeatedly smashed into the concrete leaves that claim in question. Add that nobody witnessed that claimed event also leaves it in question. Why would he lie about having his head smashed repeatedly on the concrete sidewalk? Because it gave him reason to fear for his life.
* Knowing or not knowing the law in itself is not material. Except that he claimed that he didn't know when in fact he had taken a course on it. It goes to his credibility, and the credibility of his story. Why did he feel the need to lie and claim he knew nothing of the law? Because if he knew the law, he knew what he needed to claim to avoid arrest, conviction and prison. He knew what story he needed to concoct in order to justify what he knew was unjustified.
* Again goes to credibility. Given the nature and extent of his injuries, in all likelihood Martin was incapable of speech. So why did Zimmerman lie? Just adding too much detail in an attempt to make it sound real, and instead making it sound as made up as it likely was.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Now we know there was no GZ DNA under TM's fingernails. What did he attack him with? Skittles?
Skittles
(153,170 posts)yes INDEED
Vattel
(9,289 posts)(just kidding)
Skittles
(153,170 posts)(just kidding)
yes, my DU tagname took on a permanent poignant meaning with the senseless death of Trayvon 
brush
(53,801 posts)This sums it all up so well. Thanks for posting, magical thyme.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Another big one for me was the use of his silly Hollywood movie lines when he claimed at different times what Martin said. The "You got a problem now, homie," "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker," and "You got me" are the most absurd contrived completely unbelievable lies he made up. They are so ludicrous as to be laughable. That all by itself would have had me believing that his entire story was probably just as made up. Then again, his claim for the reason he got out of the car was to get an address when it is clear as day from his call to the non-emergency number about the scary black kid doing nothing at all peculiar that the reason he got out of the car was to chase after Martin, and even the police that interviewed him believed so and said so.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)their driveway. The neighbor claimed it was an "accident" that happened as she was taking the gun out of the glove compartment. He was heard to say "you bitch" as he was literally falling dead. However, I don't remember where on his body he was shot and at what range. I was a kid when that happened and I remember hearing that he actually said it. So in some cases, I guess, you can get fatally shot and still make an utterance. The neighbor was convicted and got life imprisonment.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)
chillfactor
(7,578 posts)I suggest there are so many holes in zimmerman's story plus all his lies already contradicted by witnesses...your denial peg's you as a zimmerman sympathizer whether you admit it or not...
brush
(53,801 posts)This is from your post: 3. Nothing has contradicted the notion that the head was smashed on concrete. All medical testimony agrees that injuries are consistent with being hit on concrete. Repeatedly is debatable -- again, no contradictory evidence.
You're lying as much as zimmerman now.
The medical examiner testified yesterday that zimmerman's injury to the back of the head was very minor and not consistent with his head being repeatedly bashed on concrete like zimmy claimed.
She also said all that was needed to treat it was a band-aid.
HAH! A band-aid? How do you explain that?
And why are you so consistently posting this pro-zimmerman crap? Do you get off on it. There are so many times that he's been proven a liar, even to the judge in court about his finances, and then about his passport. He's a lying liar and a killer and you keep defending him.
Your biases are clouding your judgment.
chuckstevens
(1,201 posts)Remember, in 1955 Mose Wright (the uncle of Emit Till) saw Roy Bryant, the husband of the women Emit had said "bye baby" to, and his brother in law J Milam come to his house and take Emit away in the middle of the night. Milam had a pistol in hand. Emit was found two weeks later; shot and decomposing in the river near Money Mississippi.
It took the all white jury less than an hour to find Bryan and Milam NOT GUILTY. The Zimmerman case looks to us like a slam dunk, but never underestimate the stupidity and racism of Southern Justice
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)The first two days of the trial everyone was posting here about his guilt. Notice the posts have totally dropped off, and now there are posts about the prosecution throwing the case, etc.
Personally I morally think Zim is guilty of manslaughter, but even that he will be found innocent of.
chuckstevens
(1,201 posts)Manslaughter is when someone does not intend to kill during an altercation, but it winds up happening. George Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, who kept trailing an African American kid (even when the cops told him not to) just because he was black. In Zimmerman's mind, HE was the LAW and had every right to shoot to kill if necessary. That is very different than manslaughter.
By your logic, OJ Simpson didn't mean to kill Nicole Simpson Brown and Ron Goldman; he was just confronting them. BS!
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)but know, I don't think Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon. Who sits on the phone with police while stalking someone to kill them? I think he was following him to see what he was up to, and it ended up causing the fight that led to the death.
Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)
Post removed
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)don't fuck with me and tell me Florida is a socially progressive state that would NEVER see race as they made their jury deliberations. Don't even pretend you are serious.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I believe there are lessor included counts. He may still get 25 to life. Oh and racism is still alive today. But I bet you know that, right?
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)The prosecutions own witness, said he believed Zimmerman.
Zimmerman only needs reasonable doubt.
There is almost no chance he gets convicted.
John2
(2,730 posts)Serino was a reluctant witness for the prosecution. He also removed himself from the case. So you want us to believe the police isn't bias in this case? So you are trying to tell us, George Zimmerman, didn't have more than a normal relationship with law enforcement? Zimmerman has not shown any reasonable doubt.
The evidence is clear, regardless of O'Mara's claims, Zimmerman profiled and had some dislike for Martin. That has been proven. Evidence shows Zimmerman pursued Martin at the beginning. There is no evidence showing Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck and Martin jumped him.
There is no proof that Martin didn't give Zimmerman his injuries defending himself. The prosecution has already proved Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman would have to prove that he used all means of self defense. He hasn't done that. The only self defense he can prove is using a gun, which is Deadly Force. The prosecution needs to simply read the law on Deadly Force and point out what I said. All of that has been proven without a reasonable doubt.
brush
(53,801 posts)Orrex
(63,218 posts)It would be greatly surprising to me if a reasonable jury were to acquit Zimmerman.
premium
(3,731 posts)I've testified at enough criminal trials to know that the prosecution is having a very bad time so far.
Orrex
(63,218 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)that would be a Vegas thing, I live about 4 hours north of there.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)his next victim.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)What he did to TM.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)And when Serino tried to fake Zimmerman out by saying that someone had videotaped the whole fight, Zimmerman expressed relief and said he was hoping that was the case. Also, some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in describing the details of a traumatic event are to be expected even if someone is trying to tell the truth.
Lex
(34,108 posts)with a "oh well, shit happens" kind of thing so I'm not surprised at that testimony.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)is hard to shake up. I'm sure Zimmerman thought he could explain or lie his way out of it all.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)His response was evidence of his truthfulness. All evidence can be explained away, but it is still evidence.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Baloney.
His response is evidence that HE thought he had done good.... which he still does. Of course he thinks he's gonna be OK with his buddy cops. It does not prove he didn't stalk and murder the kid. It has nothing to do with what actually happened. You are gonna believe an interpreted response from some vigilante who thinks he's Rambo and done good to a lame bluff by a buddy on the force? Really? That's all you got?
Lex
(34,108 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)I am only saying that his response to that question is evidence that he was being truthful. I guess you can't see that.
premium
(3,731 posts)LEO's are allowed to be deceptive to suspects to try to catch them in lies, the fact that he immediately said good, that the video would prove his side of the story is a good thing for the defense.
I did it myself many times.
Lex
(34,108 posts)You should know that probably.
premium
(3,731 posts)Suspects that immediately respond positively are usually telling the truth.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)It's more likely the result of a rehearsed story prepared in advance.
premium
(3,731 posts)got those links yet?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Classic!
premium
(3,731 posts)on the playground of your grade school?
I can do this all day and night and, I'll be better at it.
Find those links yet?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)
premium
(3,731 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)You know, the repetition technique must be used carefully, as it will generally not work when employed against a source having great self-control. 
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it !!!!
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Otherwise the source of the interview knows he has you "on the ropes" ...... so to speak. 
premium
(3,731 posts)
rdharma
(6,057 posts)...... and is sure to lose any rapport you may have previously gained with the source of the interview.
It's getting late. Lessons are over for tonight, Mr. FLEO. Hope you learned something.
premium
(3,731 posts)I made what was a generous offer to you and you refused, or couldn't prove what you accused me of.
And then, here's this refuting your lies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172125963#post26
You want to keep playing?
This is comedy gold.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Incentives must seem to be logical and possible. You must not promise anything that cannot be delivered. As an experienced FLEO interviewer, you must surely already know that.
It really is getting late. I think I will retire for the night so I can get up and see the local 4th of July parade tomorrow.
Thank you for keeping the VC from invading our country.
Remember........ "freedom berries" aren't free and they don't grow on trees! 
premium
(3,731 posts)You wouldn't last 5 minutes with me in an interrogation room.
But, that's ok, you've already outed yourself as a less then honest person, I used to enjoy outing and testifying against people like you.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Come back tomorrow for your next lesson! Buh-bye!
Oh, and be sure you read my edited post immediately above your last one! 
premium
(3,731 posts)You couldn't teach me a lesson on your best day, but, you're more than welcome to come back tomorrow and try to " teach me a lesson" about LE methods of interrogation. I look forward to you superior knowledge on FLE interrogation procedures.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...by his getting an A in the class proffessor Carter taught
Vattel
(9,289 posts)to immediately express relief when told that there was a video of the fight that could undermine his whole story if he was lying. I wish my professors had taught me so well.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)This is going to be an instructive event for you whippersnappers out there. The law represents only money and power, and while Zimmerman doesn't seem to have a lot of money, his father the judge--the judge nobody seems to know, which might suggest he's a FISA judge--has plenty of power.
Zimmerman will stay free for the trial, and stay free on appeal even if the prosecution or the cops don't flop for him. If he is convicted, the appeal will be dragged out for years, and then when things are more quiet, the case will be steered to one of Daddy's pals, the charges will be reversed and the case dismissed.
Mark my words.
Lex
(34,108 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)I've won the knowledge that murder itself is a tool in one's own legal defense. So if I'm in the wrong, the other guy has to die.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...and then gone on to note the Right Wing will dance with glee and demand that Al Sharpton be tossed off the air.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Bugs Bunny,....but he was faking.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)and that about sums up Zimmerman's inner life.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)I'm not able to follow all the testimony, but form the parts I've heard, it sounds like they're turning a slam dunk into an air ball. What the hell is wrong with these prosecutors?
brush
(53,801 posts)The jury has the discretion to find zimmy guilty of Man 1 or Man 2 if they don't go with 2nd degree murder. Both of those have close to the same 25 years in the joint as 2nd degree.
The only outcome that will keep zimmy out of jail is total acquital.
So the jury has 4 verdicts they can render. My bet is that it will be one of the 3 that will put ol' lying zimmy away for a looooooong time.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)twice.
disgusting piece of murdering shit!
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)The prosecution has had only a few good moments during their half of the trial. We have no idea exactly what O'Mara is going to let loose with when it's his turn.
This thing is not over with by a long shot. Attorneys like O'Mara see this as a golden opportunity to jack their fees into the tens of millions. Nervous banksters are watching closely, lest they need someone who can successfully call night day.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)They say they might on Friday, but the defense drags it's feet by asking the same question 25 times, so no telling when they will rest and turn it over to the defense. This thing is only about a third of the way through.
One thing I don't get is how Trayvon Martin got the upper hand with GZ (supposedly.) Because GZ went to MMA sessions twice a week back before he made the biggest mistake of his stupid little life. GZ is as guilty as the day is long. And he's a wimp too. Killed a teenager because he was skeered and he bumped his heady, in the dark.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)No evidence of that. Lots of insinuation -- "You don't remember all the street names in your own neighborhood?" -- but no evidence.
"Jumping out of the bushes" is an idiom which means approximately "he was hiding and came out of nowhere." I've used it that way before, and I'm sure one or more of the jurors have as well. You, of course, will claim that you've never in your life used the phrase to mean anything other than the violent physical emergence from dense deciduous undergrowth, that you've never in your life heard the phrase used in an idiomatic, non-literal sense, and that you cannot conceive how anyone who was not a depraved child murderer could use the phrase in such a way.
Even Angela Corey's personal ME -- the only witness who hasn't ending up testifying for the defense so far -- had to admit that his injuries were consistent with his head hitting concrete.
No real evidence of that either, but it's at least possible. However, since it was to Sean f'n Hannity and not to police, prosecutors, or anyone who even remotely matters in to the case....
At least you're not even trying to claim evidence for this one.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh well....
He musta been wearing OJ's gloves when he attacked Zimmerman.
alp227
(32,044 posts)i hope the jury remembers THAT fact.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)and here's a link http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances
He is a well practiced liar isn't he?
BootinUp
(47,171 posts)I think some old cartoons might have used the "You got me" thing, probably Bugs Bunny (best cartoons evvvah)
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)I swear I remember that line from a movie somewhere when an actor was shot. I just can't remember which one.
brush
(53,801 posts)That's why that lie popped into ol' zimmy's head so quick.
"You got me"
What joke. We're supposed to believe bad dialogue from D movies?
B2G
(9,766 posts)It's possible that's what was actually said.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Just like "You got a problem now, homie," and "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker."
With an expanding bullet that went directly into his heart basically blowing it up had he been capable of uttering anything it would have been a cry of agony.
Seems to me that when someone is shot in the heart by an expanding bullet they wouldn't be capable of forming any words. Or is such a thing not so painful in your world? Just a bitty little bee sting, is that it?
Duckwraps
(206 posts)Lets not waste time hearing a defense. 
RGR375
(107 posts)Most of the people here have no clue on how self defense laws work and they only operate on feelings and emotion. They all believe zimmerman should be convicted and do not care what the law says. Turn this whole thing around and zimmerman and martin swap roles and i would bet most of these people would be saying that martin is being prosecuted in a case that is clearly self defense.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In fact, the first police to arrive yelled for some time for Martin to show his hands, even though it was dang clear he was dead. I don't fault the police for that, but Martin would not have been treated as kindly as ole george the police suckup.
Duckwraps
(206 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckwraps
(206 posts)demunderground1985la
(3 posts)I hope that bastard Zimmerman ends up locked up for the rest of his life. Murderer.