DescentBB

So the Zimmerman case has gone to trial and the link gives you a look at what the prosecutions star witness is all about. Kinda a sad commentary on the teaching of readable english in todays schools. Then again I'm just a product of a all white school system and would be embarrassed to write like she does. The link to to what the witness had scrubbed from her twitter account but I guess she thought deleting something made it disappear...kinda like her credibility :

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/jeant ... rub?page=0

all she is is a witness to hearing(not reading or transcribing) a phone conversation. Her story isn't, from what I've read, crucial, except to corroborate in a whole narrative what others will testify in better fashion to parts of. We'll see how it plays out. I said at the outset that I suspect he will not be convicted of murder, and I'll stick with that, but this poor child, I feel sorry for more than anything. She clearly didn't wish to be where she has been the past two days. Then again, to an all-woman jury, that fact alone might count for something......

well except for the fact that her.

Story Keep changing.
She admitted she lied.
She was combative with the defense attorney even to the point of trying to leave the stand.
And appeared to be making things up as she spoke.

I'd say she was a magnificent witness.


















for the defense

And she was reported to be the prosecutions star witness.

callmeslick wrote:all she is is a witness to hearing(not reading or transcribing) a phone conversation. Her story isn't, from what I've read, crucial, except to corroborate in a whole narrative what others will testify in better fashion to parts of.
......

She is a witness who only heard one or two relevant things and has offered different accounts of what those things were and then she spontaneously added what would be a significant new event, if it is to be believed, that was never disclosed before her testimony in trial.
That makes her very hard to believe.

Add to it that half of what she swears to makes Martin look like the racially intolerant aggressor, corroborating Zimmermans accounting of the events, and it becomes very hard to believe a reasonable, non-politically motivated prosecutor would have ever brought this case to trial! In fact they didn't and months later the race-pimps in the media and Washington forced it to happen in spite of the evidence!

If you strip away all the reports that proved to be false or based on race-baiting assumptions and filter down to only the depositions and physical evidence you have no cause for indictment.
And yet Zimmerman faces life in prison because all that crap has not been filtered out.

So now threats of killing white people if Zimmerman is acquitted are being reported. So once again racists threats trying to throw the outcome of a trial. I wonder if Al Sharpton will stand up and condemn such verbiage.

As long as they go after white Hispanics…with Jewish names...lol

This whole thing is a joke...a very bad joke.

woodchip wrote:So now threats of killing white people if Zimmerman is acquitted are being reported. So once again racists threats trying to throw the outcome of a trial. I wonder if Al Sharpton will stand up and condemn such verbiage.

No. But be prepared for liberal weenies to now acuse you of being a paranoid racist for suggesting there could be backlash of the black on white variety.

I don't know how many of you got to watch the testimony of the defense witness famed forensic pathologist Di Maio, but he just eviscerated the prosecutions case.

First was the testimony of the gunshot wound, how the gun powder impacted the clothing and because of the patterns, the clothing would have been away from Trevons body...consistent with Trevon being on top and leaning over Zimmerman.

Second was the prosecutions assertion that if shot thru the heart, trevon could not have been able to be found with his hands underneath his body as his arms were spread when shot. The pathologist graphic example of pulling a heart out of a person and the person still being able to walk and talk was riveting...as was his knowledge of a case where a guy was heart shot point blank with a shot gun and being able to run 60 feet.

Third was showing how the lacerations as depicted by the prosecution as being inconsequential were anything but.

I strongly urge to find a You Tube vid of this testimony as it shows how science supersedes impressions and political hyperbole. Really a amazing presentation. Now to wait for cross examination by the prosecutor.

Ah, but Zimmerman isn't a stellar advocate of telling the truth either. In 2010, he was taught all about those "Stand Your Ground" laws when he took a class on criminal litigation, even though he denied having any knowledge about those same laws at the time of the shooting when he was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimme ... ur-ground/

TC, do you remember everything you were taught in college?

Here's what gets me:

Why is so much being made about who started the scuffle / who was on top of whom / who was screaming / etc?

The legal question is actually, "did Zimmerman have reason to defend himself with lethal force?" / "was his life legitimately threatened?".

Now, the evidence appears to support that Zimmerman's head hit the ground (some abrasions, roughly what I'd expect for a short street fight, not enough for the "head repeatedly slammed" claim), and Di Maio's testimony shows it was probably Martin on top at the end of the fight. Is that enough to legitimately constitute thinking "my life is in danger"?

[Personally, I'm not so sure. Zimmerman's claim about Martin grabbing for the gun would probably be enough, but there's no evidence to support that account of events.]

woodchip wrote:TC, do you remember everything you were taught in college?

Yes. Most of it was important for doing my job properly in my chosen field of employment. I would think that a security guard carrying a gun would definitely know about a "Stand Your Ground" law after taking a criminal litigation class.

Foil, you're forgetting about Martin's point of view. He was minding his own business going home. He was being followed by someone who didn't identify himself or his intentions. Zimmerman also didn't follow the orders of the police dispatcher to NOT CONFRONT the person he was following. He apparently also DID NOT IDENTIFY himself to Martin as a security guard either, at least not that I've heard anywhere in this trial. Knowing that, if you were in Martin's shoes, wouldn't you defend yourself vigorously if that person following you suddenly came at you? I would.

tunnelcat wrote:Foil, you're forgetting about Martin's point of view.

We honestly don't know anything about Martin's point of view. Whether he felt threatened by Zimmerman (this appears to be the case) or responded aggressively (also appears to be the case), the legal question is still about Zimmerman, and whether his life was ever legitimately in danger.

Personally, I'm not sure there's enough evidence for Zimmerman to make that claim. It's one thing to be hurt while losing a street fight; it's quite another to be in immenent danger of getting killed.

[As I said, if the other guy grabbed his gun, I could see the argument. But there's no evidence to support that.]

Foil wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Foil, you're forgetting about Martin's point of view.

We honestly don't know anything about Martin's point of view. Whether he felt threatened by Zimmerman (this appears to be the case) or responded aggressively (also appears to be the case), the legal question is still about Zimmerman, and whether his life was ever legitimately in danger.

Personally, I'm not sure there's enough evidence for Zimmerman to make that claim. It's one thing to be hurt while losing a street fight; it's quite another to be in immenent danger of getting killed.

[As I said, if the other guy grabbed his gun, I could see the argument. But there's no evidence to support that.]

"losing a street fight" implies some kind of mutual willful combat scenario. There is no evidence that supports that was the situation...
Having your nose punched hard enough to send you to the ground and then having the assailant sit on top of you and slam your head into the concrete "once" according to your theory is not evidence that the assailant didn't try to slam the victims head into the concrete again and again.

I would expect the victim to try and raise his head off the ground, effectively pushing back against the 'head slamming' attempts of the assailant so there is no evidence that the victim didn't fear for his head being slammed successfully into the concrete a second and third time even if he was able to thwart the subsequent attempts he had suffered up to that point.

How many times should the victim suffer his head being slammed into the concrete before he is reasonable to fear for his life if the person who slammed it the first time is trying to do it again and again?!? How many times does it take to suffer grave bodily harm or death? I think one can do it....so if you survive the first, and then resist the second and third do you lose the right to fear any further attempts?!?

The premise that this was mutual combat is pure conjecture on your part and the testimony of witnesses and the victim of the head smashing don't support the theory that it was a mutual 'street fight'. So for you to judge it as a street fight is a prejudicial point of view.

There is nothing wrong with being indignant at someone for profiling you. There is something criminal about violent physical assault...even if you assault a person who made you indignant. Once you launch a violent assault on someone you are open to be on the receiving end of their interpretation of self defense.
Based on the evidence Zimmerman's interpretation is consistent with Florida law.

Teaching someone that they have a right to turn their indignation into violence will possibly get that person killed.
Trayvon Martin was shot by Zimmerman but the blame for his death lies with others...

Will Robinson wrote:"losing a street fight" implies some kind of mutual willful combat scenario. There is no evidence that supports that was the situation...

Even Zimmerman said he was resisting / fighting back. It's been called a "fight" / "scuffle" / etc. throughout the trial. But you can disagree about semantics, that's fine.

My point is that by using the "self-defense" defense, the requirement is now on Zimmerman to show that he had legitimate reason to fear for his life, not just getting hurt.

Will Robinson wrote:How many times should the victim suffer his head being slammed into the concrete before he is reasonable to fear for his life if the person who slammed it the first time is trying to do it again and again?!?

That's exactly the question.

Putting myself in Zimmerman's shoes, if I've had my head pushed to the ground a couple of times (that's about the extent of the abrasions), I'm getting beaten up, but unless I'm irrationally freaking out, I'm not fearing for my life. [Disclaimer: Unless the other guy is grabbing my gun, which is Zimmerman's story.]

Well, I look at it like this, and I personally have been in over at least 30 fist fights. If you never been in one, you have no idea what your talking about. It only takes one rash move to slam someone's head on the pavement and fracture it, or a thumb in the eye socket. I've seen people knocked down and then have their throats stomped on. If I got a gun and your attacking me, your gonna get shot, or knifed one.

flip wrote:It only takes one rash move to slam someone's head on the pavement and fracture it, or a thumb in the eye socket.

If there was anything along the lines of a head fracture or eye damage, I'd probably agree with you.

But the physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries are really minimal. To me, they just don't fit a life-threatening scenario (again, unless there is some evidence Martin was getting hold of his gun).

flip wrote:...I personally have been in over at least 30 fist fights.

Just curious: In how many of those fights were either you or the other guy armed with a gun or knife? If so, did you or the other guy use the gun/knife because of fearing for life?

Yea, but what would have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t used his weapon?

Dude that’s the whole point of self defense. (to disable someone “before” you get killed, or maimed)

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:"losing a street fight" implies some kind of mutual willful combat scenario. There is no evidence that supports that was the situation...

Even Zimmerman said he was resisting / fighting back. It's been called a "fight" / "scuffle" / etc. throughout the trial. But you can disagree about semantics, that's fine.

Many rape victims talk about how they 'fought back'. Would you say they were just in a street fight....or are you the one trying to morph a legitimate distinction (the totality of the evidence) into a semantic dodge by selectively isolating some of the language?

Foil wrote:My point is that by using the "self-defense" defense, the requirement is now on Zimmerman to show that he had legitimate reason to fear for his life, not just getting hurt.

"Legitimate" self defense in any state, surely in Florida, doesn't require ANY injury to take place! So Zimmerman can show much more 'legitimate reason for fear' than the law's minimum requirement.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:How many times should the victim suffer his head being slammed into the concrete before he is reasonable to fear for his life if the person who slammed it the first time is trying to do it again and again?!?

That's exactly the question.

Putting myself in Zimmerman's shoes, if I've had my head pushed to the ground a couple of times (that's about the extent of the abrasions), I'm getting beaten up, but unless I'm irrationally freaking out, I'm not fearing for my life. [Disclaimer: Unless the other guy is grabbing my gun, which is Zimmerman's story.]

If you are getting your head slammed into concrete you are in danger of much more than just losing a fight. If Zimmerman had died from the first blow against the concrete was it just a scuffle if someone later called it one?

If you get in a scuffle with someone and your punch sends them on their back to the ground and then you jump on top of them, straddle their torso, and hit them while they are pinned under you are you still just having a fight?
If he dies from that second blow that you hit him with after you jumped on top of him was it just an unfortunate death not the result of any particular malice on your part?

If Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down with the punch to the nose and then stopped his assault...moved away and then Zimmerman shot him it wouldn't be self defense. But that isnt what Trayvon did.
He went thug and got shot for it.

There were only 4 that involved weapons. A bat, that I get hit in my thigh and forearm, I was unarmed until I grabbed the bat . I got cut with a razor knife across my elbow and thumb, that fight ended when I picked up a 2x4 stud and the guy begged me not to bash his brains in. Once, a guy swung around and barely tagged me in my side before I blocked it, got a little pinprick in my side, and I have a large scar on my forearm where I got cut the worse struggling for the knife. No guns ever, thank God. I can't speak for the other guys, and each time I was unarmed, but I ALWAYS fought like it was for my life, I seen people facked up and it wasn't gonna happen to me. Every fight is a life or death situation and I'd venture to guess that after one hurts the other, they immediately regret it, but in the heat of the day and the moment, that's what happens. I can upload pics of the scars if you think I'm talking trash and that's why I say, if you never been in a fight, if you never saw your light zoom away and then back again, you can't really judge it.

EDIT: Exactly Spidey.

Spidey wrote:...that’s the whole point of self defense. (to disable someone “before” you get killed, or maimed)

flip wrote:There were only 4 that involved weapons. ... No guns ever, thank God. I can't speak for the other guys, and each time I was unarmed, but I ALWAYS fought like it was for my life...

Will Robinson wrote:If you are getting your head slammed into concrete you are in danger of much more than just losing a fight.

Interesting. Although I've been hurt, I've never feared for my life in a fight. Looks like I'm in the minority on that...

Will Robinson wrote:... are you the one trying to morph a legitimate distinction (the totality of the evidence) into a semantic dodge by selectively isolating some of the language?

You're the one who took issue with the terminology I used. Let me know if you want me to use something else.

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:My point is that by using the "self-defense" defense, the requirement is now on Zimmerman to show that he had legitimate reason to fear for his life, not just getting hurt.

"Legitimate" self defense in any state, surely in Florida, doesn't require ANY injury to take place! So Zimmerman can show much more 'legitimate reason for fear' than the law's minimum requirement.

I did not say he had to show injury (he has). I said he had to show legitimate reason to fear for his life.

He was fighting an unarmed teenager; unless he could show Martin was grabbing his gun, I just don't see an imminent threat of death.

Will Robinson wrote:If Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down with the punch to the nose and then stopped his assault...moved away and then Zimmerman shot him it wouldn't be self defense. But that isnt what Trayvon did.

We don't know what they each did or didn't do leading up to the shot, or whether either one of them tried to walk away.

Prosecution says Zimmerman pursued and Martin tried to escape.
Defense says Martin circled back and attacked Zimmerman without warning.
We don't know.

So it comes back to: Given that a fight (scuffle, whatever you want to call it) broke out, did Zimmerman have reason to fire?

Foil wrote:
The legal question is actually, "did Zimmerman have reason to defend himself with lethal force?" / "was his life legitimately threatened?".

Now, the evidence appears to support that Zimmerman's head hit the ground (some abrasions, roughly what I'd expect for a short street fight, not enough for the "head repeatedly slammed" claim), and Di Maio's testimony shows it was probably Martin on top at the end of the fight. Is that enough to legitimately constitute thinking "my life is in danger"?

Here is a part of Florida's Stand your ground law:

"However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;"

As you cans, "great bodily harm" is part of the description and I'd have to say having your head repeatedly slammed into concrete satisfies the fear of great bodily harm.

Foil wrote:

flip wrote:It only takes one rash move to slam someone's head on the pavement and fracture it, or a thumb in the eye socket.

If there was anything along the lines of a head fracture or eye damage, I'd probably agree with you.

But the physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries are really minimal. To me, they just don't fit a life-threatening scenario (again, unless there is some evidence Martin was getting hold of his gun).

I suggest you listen to the pathologist testimony on head trauma and the wounds on Zimmermans head. He recounted how police had put people with similar injuries in jail instead of taking them to emergency and how those people died in a day or 2. Don't fall into the trap that the appearance makes the gravity of the trauma "minimal"

It's not strictly fear of your life, though, it's fear of irreversible damage.

EDIT: None of this is really to impress anyone, just the facts. I grew up in the kudzu of the deep south and then spent 20 years on a framing crew. Things happen and quick and you don't really have time to think, things just happen. I'm sure as soon as Zimmerman shot that boy, it was because he felt fear.

Just as sure that Martin felt like he was being stalked and in fear of his life. It was dark out by the way too. What it does come down to is that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, yet he did anyway like some macho police wannabe. He was the instigator of this whole incident. None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

tunnelcat wrote:None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

Convict him of what? Those facts are probably relevant to other charges, but jurors can't (or shouldn't) convict Z of 2nd-degree murder based solely on his bad decision to pursue M.

tunnelcat wrote:Just as sure that Martin felt like he was being stalked and in fear of his life. It was dark out by the way too. What it does come down to is that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, yet he did anyway like some macho police wannabe. He was the instigator of this whole incident. None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

Zimmerman has a right, as well as a request by his neighbors, to identify suspected thieves and report them to the police. He was singled out by the police who helped organize that neghborhood watch duty as someone they thought would be good for the job. He did his job well, he was told to do the things you say makes him responsible for the death of Martin.

He doesn't necessarily have a duty to identify himself and if his account of events is correct it wouldn't be natural for him to shout at Trayvon from a distance that he was a 'neighborhood watch' person....as if that has any clout...
He was trying to follow the guy not confront him and the evidence supports that version of events and only conjecture supports your/the prosecution's alternative.

He didn't instigate any violence. He engaged in following a suspect to enable the police to know where the suspect was when they actually arrived instead of have them show up where the suspect used to be....

He had called previously about other suspicious looking people and never got into a fight with any of them. Never confronted any of them. And the police never caught any of them because of that lag time between the reporting and the arrival time.
There is no evidence that he wasn't doing the same non confrontation when Martin decided to confront the 'creepy assed cracker' and punched him in the face.

There is no evidence that proves Martin was calling for help while he straddled Zimmerman and pounded his head.....help what?! Help me beat this creepy assed crackers head in?!?
There is a much more believable version that Zimmerman was crying for help while he was having his head pounded into the cement.
The eye witness came out because of the noise and found Zimmerman on bottom getting hit in the head multiple times so I'm going out on a limb that it was Zimmerman who would have been crying for help.
If you are crying for strangers to save you you are in fear....

There is a ton of evidence that he was in danger and in fear.
There is only unsubstantiated conjecture that there is an alternate explanation to what Zimmerman has offered.

So I wonder why you would try to convict him against all logic and evidence!

Foil wrote:... We don't know what they each did or didn't do leading up to the shot, or whether either one of them tried to walk away.

Prosecution says Zimmerman pursued and Martin tried to escape.
Defense says Martin circled back and attacked Zimmerman without warning.
We don't know.

So it comes back to: Given that a fight (scuffle, whatever you want to call it) broke out, did Zimmerman have reason to fire?

We do know a lot more than you are apparently willing to include in your consideration!

“He was fighting an unarmed teenager”

I know some “teenagers” that could beat just about any adult without good fighting abilities to a pulp.

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:... We don't know what they each did or didn't do leading up to the shot, or whether either one of them tried to walk away.

We do know a lot more than you are apparently willing to include in your consideration!

Really?

Your hypothetical account makes assumptions about items which have no evidence (e.g. "Martin decided to confront"), or which we don't know because of differing witness accounts (e.g. "[Z] didn't instigate"). Unless you have already made up your mind about which witness(es) you believe?

What we know isn't really that much... but that doesn't seem to stop people from making assumptions all across the board.

Foil wrote:What we know isn't really that much... but that doesn't seem to stop people from making assumptions all across the board.

to quote Sarah Palin: "you betcha".......

tunnelcat wrote:Just as sure that Martin felt like he was being stalked and in fear of his life. It was dark out by the way too. What it does come down to is that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, yet he did anyway like some macho police wannabe. He was the instigator of this whole incident. None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

No TC, Martin was in a gated community and not ( I'm assuming here) a open walk thru neighborhood. By your statement we shouldn't follow any suspicious stranger walking around trying to lure little kids away from their homes. As a member of the neighborhood watch program, Zimmerman had every right to follow someone around that shouldn't be there. If Martin simply asked Zimmerman who he was and what was he doing instead of acting like a racist thug, Martin would be alive today.

woodchip wrote: If Martin simply asked Zimmerman who he was and what was he doing instead of acting like a racist thug, Martin would be alive today.

what the literal ★■◆●

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote: If Martin simply asked Zimmerman who he was and what was he doing instead of acting like a racist thug, Martin would be alive today.

what the literal ★■◆●

You must of missed the part where Martin referred to Zimmerman as some "creepy ass cracker".

And that phrase somehow makes him a "racist thug." Got it.

Top Gun wrote:And that phrase somehow makes him a "racist thug." Got it.

I don’t know considering how people are judged by what they say on this board.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:... We don't know what they each did or didn't do leading up to the shot, or whether either one of them tried to walk away.

We do know a lot more than you are apparently willing to include in your consideration!

Really?

Your hypothetical account makes assumptions about items which have no evidence (e.g. "Martin decided to confront"), or which we don't know because of differing witness accounts (e.g. "[Z] didn't instigate"). Unless you have already made up your mind about which witness(es) you believe?

What we know isn't really that much... but that doesn't seem to stop people from making assumptions all across the board.

You said we don't know what happened leading up to the shot being fired.

We DO KNOW that cries for help were heard and a witness went out to see what was up and he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman unleashing numerous blows at Zimmermans head.

Take what you do know there and see which version, defense or prosecution, it supports...

Who was likely to be crying out for help?
Would they be crying out for help out of fear for their well being? If their head was being beat on and slammed into concrete they probably were.

Zimmermans story makes sense when you reconcile it with what you know.
The prosecutions story does not.

The prosecutions story alleges Zimmerman started the violence.
Zimmermans history with calling the police after spotting suspicious characters and NOT ever confronting them directly establishes Zimmerman as being non confrontational.

There are things established by the prosecution that clearly support Zimmermans story.

The word "cracker/white boy" is just as offensive and equivocal to me as the, O man, here I go, the N-word. Problem is that it's been taught for one side that it's alright and for the other it's a damnable sin. I myself dislike racists from both camps. It goes back to this "war" Slick refers too. It's a great and predictable way to cause disharmony. The thing those waging this war fear the most.