The George Zimmerman Trial- Page 9

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:12pm

jv, I actually find it more offensive when people try to derail or sabotage a meaningful discussion by completely talking out of their ass. Who are they fooling?

[jv92]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:15pm

So...in my best Ethel Merman voice...GET RID OF BOTH OF 'EM.

This board, Off and On Topic, is starting to make me puke lately. Not you, Headband, though. Maybe I'll take a vacation...



Updated On: 7/14/13 at 09:15 PM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 10:15pm

"Trayvon may have intitially said something to Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was the one following him in the first place. That's why he was the agressor-"

Following someone is not an act of aggression.

"And Zimmerman was intitally let to walk free the night of the murder and it took several months and a great deal of public outrage for Zimmerman, a man who admitted to killing another unarmed human being, to be charged with anything at all. That's the racist decision not to pursue the case in the first place."

That is because, the investigators concluded that Zimmerman acted in self-defense (and it appears that the jury agreed with them). It was only after the media ran with the racial aspect of the case, including NBC editing the 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound racist, and the chief of police being fired and a new prosecutor being brought in, that Zimmerman was prosecuted. Also, the evidence was initially brought to a Grand Jury, but then the new prosecutor quickly side-stepped the Grand Jury process to prosecute. Was this because the prosecutor knew that the Grand Jury might not find enough evidence to prosecute Zimmerman? Why did they decide to avoid a Grand Jury ?

"That's the racist decision not to pursue the case in the first place."

Please provide evidence that the decision was "racist".

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 10:22pm

"Just as following something is not illegal aggression, confronting someone as to why they are following you is also not illegal aggression. Neither one of them alone justifies physical injury."

That is true. Following someone is not an act of aggression nor was Martin confronting Zimmerman an act of aggression. However, Zimmerman's testimony was that Martin punched him in the face, breaking his nose. And the evidence of Zimmerman's broken nose supports that testimony. Also, the fact that Martin was much bigger than Zimmerman and was more physically fit, would indicate that Zimmerman would have been stupid to start a physical altercation with him. It is far more likely that Martin was the physical aggressor in the case. Though, Zimmerman being the only witness to how it all started, there is no way to know for certain.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:12pm

"Zimmerman's testimony was that Martin punched him in the face, breaking his nose."

Mikey, a point of order. Zimmerman, as was his right, did not testify. There is no such thing as "Zimmerman's testimony".

"Also, the fact that Martin was much bigger than Zimmerman and was more physically fit, would indicate that Zimmerman would have been stupid to start a physical altercation with him."

Zimmerman had a gun. Someone can easily be an initial aggressor toward someone bigger than he is when he has a gun. Not to mention that people do pick fights with people who can kick their ass; it happens.

Finally, people get arrested and charged every day for assaults and homicides where they claim self defense. Especially people who shoot unarmed people. These include people who are in fact innocent and people who are in fact guilty; these include police officers and civilians, people who kill strangers and people who kill people they know. It should be up to the jury to decide the person's guilt. Not the police. It was a travesty for the police not to have arrested George Zimmerman and to rather simply take his word as to what happened.

If the right thing would be to simply take the word of the alive person with a gun as to why he or she was justified in killing someone, then just about everyone who explained why they killed the person they killed, the person who can not rebut that explanation, would be let go. it doesn't work that way.

In any event, you and I were not on the jury. The jury has spoken. You see the facts your way. I see them mine. Let's agree to disagree.

Liza's, I got your back.





Updated On: 7/14/13 at 11:12 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:13pm

If someone doesn't kill him first, Zimmerman may have to leave the country.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:29pm

"So if you believe Rachel Jeantelle's testimony, that also means Zimmerman was in fact "stalking" him and spoke the first words."

No one is disputing the fact that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, so I am not sure what your point is. And, no, she testified that she heard Martin speak to Zimmerman first. "Why are you following me?" was what she testified Martin said to Zimmerman.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/27/cnr.01.html

"Aren't they speculating that because Zimmerman was on the bottom, he was also the one yelling for "help?""

They could come to that conclusion based on the evidence that I posted that backs up their conclusion that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help. Zimmerman being on the bottom was not the ONLY evidence presented that he was the one yelling for help. Why are you selecting certain things I said and ignoring others? There was a LOT more evidence (including an eyewitness) that it was Zimmerman yelling for help.

------------------
I wrote : "I don't recall this. Perhaps you could fill me in on this?"

Liza's Headband responded: "And this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't be arguing for a verdict if you haven't actually followed the trial. Had you followed it, you would know that Zimmerman first told detectives it was not him yelling upon initial review of the phone call recording."

That is absolutely NOT TRUE!! Why do you come onto this board, tell me to stop "talking out of my ass about things I don't know", and yet you are posting BLATANT FALSEHOODS in your lame attempts to contradict me. Zimmerman ALWAYS said that he was yelling for help. He said it moments after the shooting to the neighbors when they came out. "I was yelling for help and no one would help me."
Here is the tape recorded testimony of Zimmerman:
"He was whaling on my head and I was yelling for help," Zimmerman can be heard saying to Det. Doris Singleton on the tape. "He put his hands on my nose and said, 'You're going to die tonight.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-recalled-trayvon-martin-gosh/story?id=19543886&page=2#.UeNnB45WLao

It was Trayvon Martin's father and brother who initially said they were not sure it was Trayvon and then later changed their story. So it is not ME who is speaking out of my ass about things I don't know about!!

"The scenario being that George Zimmerman should act in no greater capacity than the "eyes and ears" of the local police as Neighborhood Watchman. Once he called 911 and reported the 'suspicious' activity, his job was done. "

That may be true, but according to the scenario, Zimmerman broke no laws that night. He may have done things wrong or done things that were stupid, but these were not illegal acts --nor would they have been illegal acts in any state that I know of. It is not illegal to keep your eye on someone in your neighborhood who you believe is suspicious. It is not illegal to get out of your car and try to follow that person. It IS illegal to assault a person --and the evidence indicates that that is what Trayvon Martin did.

"Out of respect for those on this thread and the family of Trayvon Martin, I ask that you please stop talking out of your ass and only discuss what you actually know. This conversation reveals how little you know about the case."

Really?? I think this conversation shows how little YOU know about the case. ANd I think I was able to prove who is REALLY " talking out of their ass".

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:32pm

Great response, henrik. As expected.

While Zimmerman must be held accountable and is guilty, at least in my eyes, I think it's the state and its upside down laws that really messed this up.

I can't help but feel a little sick to my stomach when I think about Zimmerman becoming a free man and then read the story of the Florida woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shots because of her husband's threatened abuse. Are you KIDDING me?!

Florida needs some help. Oh, lawd.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:37pm

Simply not true, Mikey.

In their closing, the prosecution brought up a transcript of an interview between investigators and Zimmerman where he claimed he didn't recognize the voice on the phone call. It was on the list of many lies and contradictions simply reiterated by the State.

You were clearly not watching the trial. Thank God I know what I saw and heard.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:39pm

"Mikey, a point of order. Zimmerman, as was his right, did not testify. There is no such thing as "Zimmerman's testimony". "

He may not have testified at the trial, but his initial taped interview with the detectives and the interview he did with Sean Hannity was submitted as evidence.

"Finally, people get arrested and charged every day for assaults and homicides where they claim self defense. Especially people who shoot unarmed people. "

Yes, however Zimmerman's physical injuries were quite visible right after the shooting. They included multiple lacerations and swelling to the head and a broken nose. The only physical wound to Martin was the gunshot wound to the chest, which would have been considered the wound from Zimmerman's defensive action. Also, the only other eyewitness testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. THerefore there was no evidence that Zimmerman had attacked Martin. All the evidence pointed to self-defense.
Again, if the prosecutors were so confident of their evidence why did they side-step the Grand Jury??

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, I came to my conclusion based on the facts, not based on emotion, which I don't think is true of others on this thread.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:44pm

"He may not have testified at the trial, but his initial taped interview with the detectives and the interview he did with Sean Hannity was submitted as evidence."

That is NOT sworn testimony, as it was not subject to cross-examination. So let's get that straight.

"Yes, however Zimmerman's physical injuries were quite visible right after the shooting. They included multiple lacerations and swelling to the head and a broken nose."

Injuries considered insignificant by the medics who cared for him that evening and the PA who saw him the next morning. He came in asking for a note for work! Nothing else! Please do not exaggerate the injuries.

Updated On: 7/14/13 at 11:44 PM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:49pm

"In their closing, the prosecution brought up a transcript of an interview between investigators and Zimmerman where he claimed he didn't recognize the voice on the phone call. It was on the list of many lies and contradictions simply reiterated by the State. "

Isn't it just GREAT to be a liberal, where you can just say something is true and that makes it true? While others, who use actual QUOTES from RECORDED INTERVIEWS and provide actual LINKS and EVIDENCE to support what they are saying are just "talking out of their ass" and "derailing a meaningful discussion" ?? Right, FACTS (with links to sources) are what derail the meaningful discussion to the liberal!!
Must be nice!

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:56pm

First of all, I am not a "liberal." I have stated what I am on here more than once. Nor do I even see this as a political issue, so you're an imbecile for bringing that into this.

Secondly, I do have proof. The closing argument of the prosecution. What more do you need? Are you implying that the state lied in their closing? All you need to do is Google for a video recording of the closing arguments. I was sitting there, watching it on the television, and yes... I HEARD IT WITH MY OWN TWO (NON-LIBERAL) EARS.

You really are insufferable. I'm done. TheatreDiva was right... A brick wall, indeed.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:04am

"Again, if the prosecutors were so confident of their evidence why did they side-step the Grand Jury??"

How could it have advantaged the prosecution to go into the grand jury? I see no way it would have. Therefore, why would they have bothered? It may (or may not) reflect on their confidence, but so what? A prosecutor doesn't have to be confident he or she will get an indictment, or that he or she will get a conviction. A prosecutor simply has to believe he or she is fulfilling his or her responsibilities by bringing a case which has merit.

Florida happens to permit felonies to be charged without indictment (unlike many jurisdictions). Any good prosecutor will tell you that many prosecutions are lost and many more jeopardized because of inconsistencies between the trial and grand jury testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. If the prosecutor can avoid that potential minefield, why shouldn't he or she do so? Especially in this case where the failure of a grand jury to indict - to even indict the case - might have had great political fallout, revealing an inability of the system to take the shooting of an unarmed young black man coming home from the store by an overzealous neighborhood watch guy who was stalking him (forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to agree with me on at least that much) seriously enough to even indict the case.

That would be seen by many as a much greater insult to Trayvon Martin's memory, and to the security and protection of young black men, than the acquittal the jury handed down yesterday.

As Chief Justice (N.Y.) Sol Wachtler once said, "you can indict a ham sandwich".





Updated On: 7/15/13 at 12:04 AM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:22am

"Secondly, I do have proof."

Great!! Can I see it?

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:28am

" Are you implying that the state lied in their closing?"

Yup.

"The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks.

Below is what Zimmerman told Manalo per Manalo — that he “shot” someone. He did not say “killed.”

"“I was defending myself when I shot him,” Manalo said Zimmerman told him. Soon after police arrived and Zimmerman asked Manalo to call his wife. “Just tell her Ishot someone,” Manalo said Zimmerman told him.""

Link (you know, EVIDENCE)

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/11/zimmerman-prosecutor-blatantly-lies-during-closing-arguments-defense-sits-there-and-does-nothing/

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:29am

Stop.
Engaging.
Xenia.
He.
Is.
A.
Waste.
Of.
Everybody's.
Time.
He.
Is.
Baiting.
You.
With.
His.
Every.
Single.
Post.
Do.
Not.
Give.
Him.
Any.
Of.
Your.
Time.
He.
Does.
Not.
Deserve.
It.
He.
Deserves.
Isolation.
You.
Deserve.
Space.
To.
Feel.
What.
You're.
Feeling.
You.
Deserve.
Space.
To.
Express.
Your.
Feelings.
He.
Doesn't.
Deserve.
To.
Sidetrack.
Your.
Expression.

Updated On: 7/15/13 at 12:29 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:42am

Word.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:54am

There isn't "the other side" to feeling outrage. Equal time does NOT need to be paid.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:58am

"That is NOT sworn testimony, as it was not subject to cross-examination. So let's get that straight."

But it was admitted as evidence.

"Injuries considered insignificant by the medics who cared for him that evening and the PA who saw him the next morning."

A broken nose is never "insignificant". Nor are head injuries.

"On 16 March 2009, Natasha Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell while taking a beginner skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, Canada about 80 miles (130 km) from Montreal. The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left. Refusing medical attention twice, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache. She was transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur, Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours after the fall. The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March at the age of 45. An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident."

Richardson's head injuries were initially believed to be "insignificant". Hours later she was dead.

"A brick wall, indeed."

Yeah, a brick wall of FACTS!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 1:08am

Make a vow and stick to it.
You aren't obligated to engage.
Pissing contests are never won.
Blowhards with enormous bladders just go
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and
on and on.

Updated On: 7/15/13 at 01:08 AM

[dented146]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 1:58am

We live in a society where almost any person in any state can walk around carrying a gun. It's ridiculous. This is the result.

One day it will be a dead kid playing with one.
One day it will be someone accidentally killing a friend.
One day it will be a man like Zimmerman setting off a chain of events where an innocent person dies.

[Plum]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 2:11am

Will be?

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 9:11am

Interesting article on the trial in the NY Times.

Some interesting facts about the Stand Your Ground law, which Zimmerman's attorneys decided not to use:

"Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground. Ultimately it was not part of Mr. O’Mara’s courtroom strategy, though it did play a pivotal role immediately after the shooting.

The provision, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and since adopted by more than 20 other states, allows people who fear great harm or death not to retreat, even if they can safely do so. If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force.

The provision also allows a defendant claiming self-defense to seek civil and criminal immunity at a pretrial hearing.

Mr. O’Mara said he did not rely on Stand Your Ground as a defense because Mr. Zimmerman had no option to retreat. A pretrial immunity hearing, which prosecutors said they had been expecting, would only have divulged his case. So Mr. O’Mara gambled on a jury trial."

I wonder if Zimmerman can still seek civil immunity under the law, since there is talk of the Martin family filing a civil suit against him. It would appear that self defense would take the civil lawsuit off the table.


Self Defense Hard to Topple

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 9:23am