Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[Excon]

Really.. because he is a model citizen?

iLOL
What a dumb reply.
Zimmerman came to the aid of a friend who was being assaulted.
The basis of his behavior is noble. It then turning out to be an undercover officer does not change that.

Yeah.. .. that was why I really question the DA's abilities here.

When his "coach" made it clear that Zimmerman was a "kdkdk" fighter.. the DA should have immediately redirected.... "so you are saying.. that if you take a guy and train him in MMA for OVER A YEAR. Three days a week.. at the end of the year.. that person will not be able to defend himself from an UNTRAINED scrawny kid they outweigh?" "are you really going to tell us that your training is that bad?". OR are you going to say that Zimmerman was soft COMPARED TO OTHER TRAINED MMA FIGHTERS IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS...

Another dumb reply.
The trainer made it clear that Zimmerman was not learning and apparently was not taking it seriously.
In other words, was not trained.
You thinking the prosecutor could ask further questions is laughable. If the prosecutor were to ask that, two things would happen. He would have allowed the witness to make it even more clear that Zimmerman was not trained and would open the door to more rebuttal questions which would further drive the point into the minds of the jurors that Zimmerman was not trained to any significant degree.

and not compared to an untrained, lesser weight individual...

iLOL
Zimmerman was not actually trained.
Trayvon took it upon himself to be involved in street fighting. Self trained.
We can see who had the upper hand here.

there was absolutely NO reasonable fear here.. none.

Repeatably getting your head slammed into the ground is a reason to be fearful of loss of life or great bodily harm.
Someone going for your firearm after repeatably slamming your head into the ground with the stated intent of killing you, is a life threatening situation.

Martin was minding his own business and was BEING PURSUED BY A LARGER PERSON DOWN A DARK STREET.

Dishonesty on all counts.

What would you do in that situation when you have tried to get away and you know the guy is following you?

More dishonesty. Trayvon was out of sight and had gotten away.
Either Trayvon laid in wait or returned to the area to then attack a man from his left rear who was no threat and was returning to his vehicle.

You are creating a precedent where you can pursue an individual down a darkened ally and place that person in reasonable fear of their life..

No that is you making up something absurd to believe.
Lets see. Zimmerman observed Trayvon and only followed for a short distance.
Trayvon was out of sight when Zimmerman attempted to follow in the direction Trayvon had disappeared but instead stopped by suggestion of the call taker.
Yet to you that is a life threatening situation to Trayvon. :doh But Trayvon slamming someones head into the ground or reaching for the guys firearm with the stated intent to murder him is not. :doh
That is very convoluted thinking.

Nope.. but if you have a scratch on you head.. is that EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SUSTAINING LIFE THREATENING INJURIES?

Under the law.. Zimmerman has to provide evidence that he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or grave injury in order to justify the use of deadly force.

A scratch on the back of your head does not support that belief.

Dumb.
1. You already know it wasn't just a scratch so you are again engaged in dishonesty.

the evidence of the gashes and injuries on Zimmerman

2. Zimmerman provided that.

3. You clearly do not know how this works. The injuries sustained do indeed show he had experienced a threat of great bodily harm or loss of life.
It is the act that suffices, not the actual injury. On this case it was the act of slamming his head into the ground that suffices.
But again, even that goes to the fear Zimmerman experienced and to the credible threat Trayvon made himself to be as it was Trayvon going for Zimmerman's firearm with the stated intent to murder him that caused Zimmerman to use his firearm in self defense.

 

[Excon]

Your inability to see character flaws in someone repeatedly accused of domestic violence, multiple more trivial run ins with the law and an inability to maintain gainful employment is noted.

Get accused of domestic violence much? That's normal in your world?

Really? :lamo
A "when did you stop beating your wife" esque question?
Straw-man much?

It is your inability to see reality here.

Remember Mathew Apperson? The idiot who was making false allegations against Zimmerman?
Allegations that were not supported by the available evidence? See where his irrationality got him?

Being accused means nothing, especially when said accusations are retracted and false.
But no, you want to use unsupported, unproven and retracted allegations to pass judgment on a person.
Talk about irrational thinking.


As for gainful employment? While I do not know that to be true it would be strange, as he had gainful employment before all the false allegations against him.
Gee, one would think those false allegation might have something to do with it if what you say is true. :shrug:

As for the rest, you're trying to twist a rhetorical question I made by inserting words I didn't use. I'm not biting.

Wrong again.
No one said you had to reply to the answer given to the question you asked.
But that answer is nowhere near the absurdity of your subjective and irrational opinion about Zimmerman himself.

 

[Thoreau72]

A man dead by justifiable reason.
And no, manslaughter does not work as it was an act of legal self defense.



No, he wasn't looking for trouble. That is a very silly thing to say especially as he called the police.

He was looking for trouble, and he found it. Or rather, it found him.

 

[sear]

"There was no pursuit, there was only observation and following to keep under observation." E #164

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

Your fallacious squabble is not with me. It's with George Zimmerman, the adult that pursued the school boy, and shot him dead; AND CONFESSED TO BOTH THE PURSUIT AND THE HOMICIDE !!

"Zimmerman observed Trayvon and only followed for a short distance." E #176

And apparently did so even after being advised by police dispatch to not do so.
Trayvon Martin was still alive when Zimmerman was advised to not pursue.
Yet Zimmerman pursued and confronted anyway.
And now Trayvon Martin is but a memory, and a rotting corpse. Have a nice day.

 

[Excon]

He was looking for trouble, and he found it. Or rather, it found him.

Wrong as usual.

Zimmerman was looking to keep his neighborhood safe. Trayvon is the one who went looking for trouble, caused it and got shot for doing so.

 

[sear]

Quote Originally Posted by sear
Trayvon Martin KNEW he was being night-stalked by an adult that substantially outweighed him.

The fiction, by the defenders of the racist Zimmerman:

"Wrong sear.

Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance. That is all.
There was no stalking and he knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

ok:

a) "There was no stalking":

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with the Sanford, Florida police department's accout of Zimmerman's spoken words.

b) "Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance. That is all."

You have contradicted yourself:

"There was no stalking"

"Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance."

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with yourself.

I don't mind debating the topic. But I confess it's a bit problematic when the debate opponent takes BOTH sides, as you have here.

"There was no stalking"

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

"... and he knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

They were looking at one another!!

Z was night-stalking TM.
TM noticed Z's intensive attention, and stepped in to assess his night-stalker.

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: ... And he's a black male.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

So Zimmerman says: "now he's coming towards me. ... Yup, he's coming to check me out,"

And your "informed opinion" on that is:

TM "knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

TM was closer to Zimmerman than I ever was to Jackie Gleason.
Would you also claim I "knew nothing of" Gleason's "actual weight"?

 

[Excon]

"There was no pursuit, there was only observation and following to keep under observation." E #164

Your fallacious squabble is not with me. It's with George Zimmerman, the adult that pursued the school boy, and shot him dead; AND CONFESSED TO BOTH THE PURSUIT AND THE HOMICIDE !!

And apparently did so even after being advised by police dispatch to not do so.
Trayvon Martin was still alive when Zimmerman was advised to not pursue.
Yet Zimmerman pursued and confronted anyway.
And now Trayvon Martin is but a memory, and a rotting corpse. Have a nice day.

Your post is dishonest in multiple ways.
Besides the quoting issue pointed out by another, you have told untruths.
I have no squabble with the language used by Zimmerman.

You are the one with the interpretation problem here.
"Following" here does not mean stalk. Not by legal, or general definition.

The only pursuit was on Trayvon's behalf. He caught Zimmerman and attacked him.
Zimmerman only followed, he did not pursue.

And no, Zimmerman did not confess to pursuit. That is just more dishonesty on your part.


School boy? iLOL
Young criminal adult who's actions define him as a thug.


Homicide? Yelled even! iLOL Hilarious.
Yes, Zimmerman shot him in self defense one time which resulted in his death. Duh!
Apparently you do not understand that the word encompasses killings such as those in self defense, which would be why you emphasized it by yelling.
Hilarious.

And apparently did so even after being advised by police dispatch to not do so.

Just more dishonesty again.
There was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part, only following.
And no. He went in a different direction than the one Trayvon went.
Had you paid attention to the evidence instead of your bias you would know that.

Trayvon Martin was still alive when Zimmerman was advised to not pursue.

More dishonesty Go figure.
That is a false narrative.
There was no pursuit and he was not advised "not to".
A suggestion was made that they did not need him to follow. That is all. Nothing more.
And Zimmerman acknowledged the suggestion and stopped following and instead went in a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone.
But you would know that had you paid more attention to the evidence instead of your convoluted bias.

Yet Zimmerman pursued and confronted anyway.

As expected, just more dishonesty from you.
Trayvon is the one who pursued, confronted and then attacked Zimmerman from his left rear.
Zimmerman on the other hand only followed for a short distance and then stopped.

 

[Puigb]

Excon parroting talking points from conservative treehouse again.

 

[Excon]

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with the Sanford, Florida police department's accout of Zimmerman's spoken words.

No sear. Your argument is stupid.
There is no dispute between me and the Police Department or Zimmerman.
The dispute is between you and the dictionary.
Zimmerman's following does not fit any definition of Stalking. Not the legal one (which he was not charged with. Duh!) or the general one.
It is a severely lame argument you are making.

b) "Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance. That is all."

You have contradicted yourself:

Wrong again sear.
Your argument is totally absurd.
Zimmerman's following does not fit either the legal definition or general definition of Stalk or stalking.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with yourself.

Wrong as usual.
The only quarrel here is between you, the law and the dictionary. They both say you are wrong.

I don't mind debating the topic. But I confess it's a bit problematic when the debate opponent takes BOTH sides, as you have here.

:lamo

Get a clue, your dishonest arguments wont fly here.

"... and he knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

They were looking at one another!!

iLOL
Irrelevant.
He doesn't know his weight. Especially as Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down and then mounted him.
I mean what the ****, do you think these guys were calibrated scales?

Z was night-stalking TM.

Dishonesty and wrong as usual.
1. No such thing.
2. There was no stalking on Zimmerman's part.

TM noticed Z's intensive attention, and stepped in to assess his night-stalker.

What a ****ing hilarious narrative.
Wrong as usual as there is no such thing as "night-stalking" and Zimmerman's following does not fit the legal or general definition of stalking.
But Trayvon did notice he was being observed and he chose to circle the vehicle of his observer. That is an act of intimidation.

So Zimmerman says: "now he's coming towards me. ... Yup, he's coming to check me out,"

And your "informed opinion" on that is:

TM "knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight.

That is a foolish argument.
You are suggesting that both Zimmerman and Trayvon had the skill to simply look at a person and tell their accurate weight.
Do you really not see how stupid an argument that is? (based on your other arguments I am going to guess you don't)
My G_d, besides your thoughts on this being irrelevant to the case as a whole, that is such a stupid argument, especially as Trayvon was wearing baggy clothing and a hoodie.
But no, you somehow think it matters and think he could tell his accurate weight even though Trayvon was wearing baggy clothing. Doh!

TM was closer to Zimmerman than I ever was to Jackie Gleason.
Would you also claim I "knew nothing of" Gleason's "actual weight"?

Yes, you would not be able to tell Gleason's actual weight from looking at him. Especially if he was dressed in baggy bottoms and a hoodie like Trayvon was.
And btw, you might also want to learn what "actual" means. iLOL

 

[blackjack50]

How quaint.
A vague allusion to "vulgarity" without a single quotation of my POSTED WORDS. No surprise there.

Referencing George Zimmerman masturbating.

Racist?

Trayvon was a school boy walking home from the candy store, enjoying the evening air, and the sights of the neighborhood; perhaps the homes of a few of his schoolmates, etc.
What CONCEIVABLE reason could there be to suspect him of ANYthing?! Walking is not a crime!
Trayvon had dark skin. You figure it out.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930)

This is what Z had on T:

Zimmerman NOT a racist ?!?! View attachment 67217531 Hilarious!! In that one conversation WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Z mention's T's skin color TWICE!!

And you're pretending that's NOT racist ?!?! OK Einstein. What do YOU call such racial distinction?

Let's see...

Walking alone in the rain in the dark looking into people's homes...on THEIR LAWNS. In a place where multiple break ins had occurred. Something Z was aware of.

And Z mentions T'a race when asked by the police. Way to go off the NBC edited transcript. But hey. Keep pushing that it is racist to mention someone's race when you are ASKED what race they are. Way to keep pushing that Zimmerman is guilty because he is Hispanic.

That's just racist.

Why do you continue to demand the absurd of me?

Show me where I asserted he didn't!
To the contrary. I asserted he did!

And I have provided that PROOF in Z's own words again and again, with the authority of the Sanford, Florida Police Department. You have now criticized the host of the transcript. Yet you have not yet criticized ANY of the actual transcript content. You're grasping at a straw.

You're desperate, and you're losing.

That's factually false; talk about making **** up! Hypocrite!
If you don't know what it means, ASK !!

For ANYthing to be "night-stalking" it must pass TWO independent tests. If it fails EITHER test, then you would be right that it isn't night-stalking. Those two tests:

a) It must take place at night.

So you are wrong on point one.

b) The second test it MUST pass is that it be stalking, which it was according to 18 USC § 2261A.

So your are wrong yet once again; on both points.

Don't you EVER tire of being wrong?

Excellent.
Take it up with the attorney general.
I don't supply the definitions.
I merely apply them according to contemporary linguistic conventions, as they apply to the actual wording of our coded law.

Again. You can't show exactly how he is guilty so you just "because of this." You can't prove it. Oh. And of course...the biggest most glaring fault in your argument:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/victim-witness-assistance/interstate-stalking

Can you show me where he traveled across state lines? I'm betting you can't. Your claim of stalking doesn't apply. Lmao!!! What a fail!

I can smack you down just as hard on every other falsehood you've posted.

You mean like where you failed to properly understand the federal staking code? Or where you keep claiming racism without proof on a Hispanic man who was asked what race the person he saw looking into windows in the rain at night in a neighborhood that had experienced break ins?

But it's simply too tiresome. It's like shooting pickles from a barrel, like stealing candy from a baby. Perhaps if you'd intersperse a little truth with the many falsehoods you've already posted, there might be a point in continuing. But I don't recall a single valid point you've made.

Maybe if you weren't so set on trying to prove someone's guilt without fact and too much arrogance in your own ability...it wouldn't look so foolish when you fail. Anything else to add? Or do you want to keep taking about Z's masturbation and your misunderstanding of interstate stalking charges?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

No sear. Your argument is stupid.
There is no dispute between me and the Police Department or Zimmerman.
The dispute is between you and the dictionary.
Zimmerman's following does not fit any definition of Stalking. Not the legal one (which he was not charged with. Duh!) or the general one.
It is a severely lame argument you are making.



Wrong again sear.
Your argument is totally absurd.
Zimmerman's following does not fit either the legal definition or general definition of Stalk or stalking.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.


Wrong as usual.
The only quarrel here is between you, the law and the dictionary. They both say you are wrong.


:lamo

Get a clue, your dishonest arguments wont fly here.


iLOL
Irrelevant.
He doesn't know his weight. Especially as Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down and then mounted him.
I mean what the ****, do you think these guys were calibrated scales?


Dishonesty and wrong as usual.
1. No such thing.
2. There was no stalking on Zimmerman's part.


What a ****ing hilarious narrative.
Wrong as usual as there is no such thing as "night-stalking" and Zimmerman's following does not fit the legal or general definition of stalking.
But Trayvon did notice he was being observed and he chose to circle the vehicle of his observer. That is an act of intimidation.


That is a foolish argument.
You are suggesting that both Zimmerman and Trayvon had the skill to simply look at a person and tell their accurate weight.
Do you really not see how stupid an argument that is? (based on your other arguments I am going to guess you don't)
My G_d, besides your thoughts on this being irrelevant to the case as a whole, that is such a stupid argument, especially as Trayvon was wearing baggy clothing and a hoodie.
But no, you somehow think it matters and think he could tell his accurate weight even though Trayvon was wearing baggy clothing. Doh!


Yes, you would not be able to tell Gleason's actual weight from looking at him. Especially if he was dressed in baggy bottoms and a hoodie like Trayvon was.
And btw, you might also want to learn what "actual" means. iLOL

He quoted an interstate stalking charge! Lmao!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

The fiction, by the defenders of the racist Zimmerman:

"Wrong sear.

Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance. That is all.
There was no stalking and he knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

ok:

a) "There was no stalking":

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with the Sanford, Florida police department's accout of Zimmerman's spoken words.

b) "Trayvon knew he was seen and then followed from a distance. That is all."

You have contradicted yourself:

Your quarrel is not with me. Your quarrel is with yourself.

I don't mind debating the topic. But I confess it's a bit problematic when the debate opponent takes BOTH sides, as you have here.

"There was no stalking"

"... and he knew nothing of Zimmerman's actual weight." E #168

They were looking at one another!!

Z was night-stalking TM.
TM noticed Z's intensive attention, and stepped in to assess his night-stalker.

So Zimmerman says: "now he's coming towards me. ... Yup, he's coming to check me out,"

And your "informed opinion" on that is:

TM was closer to Zimmerman than I ever was to Jackie Gleason.
Would you also claim I "knew nothing of" Gleason's "actual weight"?

https://victimsofcrime.org/our-prog...ws/criminal-stalking-laws-by-state/florida#48

Florida state law on stalking. Before you go there: repeatedly. LMAO! You got busted. So how you feel about that stalking charge now? Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Innocent until proven guilty. Prove his guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. this is what makes the Zimmerman case so frustrating to those of us that understand the law and self defense. UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman is not "innocent until proven guilty".

Self defense is an affirmative defense. Under the law.. Zimmerman has to prove that he was justified:

]

An affirmative defense of self-defense, or any other affirmative defense, doesn’t just present itself. While a criminal defendant may decide to offer no evidence during trial, hoping the prosecution will fail to meet its burden, this approach won’t work if the defendant has an affirmative defense. The defendant must offer proof at trial supporting the affirmative defense, meeting the standard of proof set by state law (usually a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser standard than the prosecution’s

).

But the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws requiring defendants to prove affirmative defenses.

Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases | Criminal Law

sir.. you repeatedly are in error. Zimmerman is NOT innocent until proven guilty. that's not HOW THE LAW WORKS UNDER SELF DEFENSE.

If you continue to ignore this basic fact of law.. there is no point in continuing the conversation. Because its obvious that you have no intention of dealing with the facts of the case.

I guess the question is whether you have the intellectually honesty to admit you are wrong here.

If so.. then we can continue the debate.

 

[jimbo]

The fact that you are trying to pull facts from mother jones tells me where you are getting your opinion. Then there is the vulgarity you get into. Yea. You don't want a discussion. You just want to take a vote and label Zimmerman guilty. Thank goodness we have laws against a bill of attainder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That vote has already been taken. Like 3 times. Zimmerman was found not guilty. All three times.

 

[blackjack50]

Wrong. this is what makes the Zimmerman case so frustrating to those of us that understand the law and self defense. UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman is not "innocent until proven guilty".

Self defense is an affirmative defense. Under the law.. Zimmerman has to prove that he was justified:

]).



Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases | Criminal Law

sir.. you repeatedly are in error. Zimmerman is NOT innocent until proven guilty. that's not HOW THE LAW WORKS UNDER SELF DEFENSE.

If you continue to ignore this basic fact of law.. there is no point in continuing the conversation. Because its obvious that you have no intention of dealing with the facts of the case.

I guess the question is whether you have the intellectually honesty to admit you are wrong here.

If so.. then we can continue the debate.

Out of your quotes: "lesser standard than the prosecution." What do you think that means? Again. He offered up evidence. It is held to a lesser standard. You cannot DISPROVE his evidence. He does NOT have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden lies ON THE PROSECUTION. Which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again. He is innocent until proven guilty. Period. That is not up for debate. He provided his evidence. There was a body. He admitted to shooting. He admitted to acting in self defense. His evidence are his wounds and witness testimony. Lesser standard.

If the prosecution wishes to disprove his side...they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not. He is innocent until proven guilty. From YOUR source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Out of your quotes: "lesser standard than the prosecution." What do you think that means? Again. He offered up evidence. It is held to a lesser standard. You cannot DISPROVE his evidence. He does NOT have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden lies ON THE PROSECUTION. Which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again. He is innocent until proven guilty. Period. That is not up for debate. He provided his evidence. There was a body. He admitted to shooting. He admitted to acting in self defense. His evidence are his wounds and witness testimony. Lesser standard.

If the prosecution wishes to disprove his side...they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not. He is innocent until proven guilty. From YOUR source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah no.. a lesser standard doesn't mean that he is innocent until proven guilty. It simply means that he doesn't have to prove that he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.. which is a very high standard.. it means that he has to say prove that he is innocent due to the preponderance of evidence.
The prosecution does not have to disprove his side by a reasonable doubt. They merely have to show that the evidence that Zimmerman produces does not show that he acted reasonably.

HE IS NOT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Its clearly explained if you bothered to read the link.. or WANTED to try and understand it.

sir.. you are not being intellectually honest. but are grasping at straws. I thought there would be a chance that you would be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong and we could go on from there..

Oh well. If you decide that you want to have a discussion.. great.. but please be intellectually honest.

 

[blackjack50]

Yeah no.. a lesser standard doesn't mean that he is innocent until proven guilty. It simply means that he doesn't have to prove that he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.. which is a very high standard.. it means that he has to say prove that he is innocent due to the preponderance of evidence.
The prosecution does not have to disprove his side by a reasonable doubt. They merely have to show that the evidence that Zimmerman produces does not show that he acted reasonably.

HE IS NOT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Its clearly explained if you bothered to read the link.. or WANTED to try and understand it.

sir.. you are not being intellectually honest. but are grasping at straws. I thought there would be a chance that you would be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong and we could go on from there..

Oh well. If you decide that you want to have a discussion.. great.. but please be intellectually honest.

Sigh. You just don't get it man.

Zimmerman did not have to prove...beyond a reasonable doubt...that Trayvon threw the first punch. Every theory. Every bit of evidence AGAINST Zimmerman...it is all speculation. You can't be convicted on speculation.

Z provided evidence for his claim. As stated by YOU and YOUR SOURCE...it does NOT have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." So. His evidence of being knocked down, witness statements to Trayvon's position, and the fact that he had injuries and lacerations consistent with being knocked down and struck.

There is NOT enough evidence to overturn his side of the story. Anything else is PURE speculation. As stated "beyond a reasonable doubt." The state...the prosecution...nor anyone else...can overturn his story. There is nothing there but speculation. You can't be convicted on speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

I am curious. Does anyone looking at these pictures think these are serious injuries?

And if so, have you ever had children?

A few small lacs and a broken nose?

Not disputing that Zimmerman had the right to protect himself.

Although I have no sympathy for what he is going through in the aftermath. Following a person walking alone at night. ANd expecting they will be ok with it?

 

[blackjack50]

View attachment 67217655

I am curious. Does anyone looking at these pictures think these are serious injuries?

And if so, have you ever had children?

A few small lacs and a broken nose?

Not disputing that Zimmerman had the right to protect himself.

Although I have no sympathy for what he is going through in the aftermath. Following a person walking alone at night. ANd expecting they will be ok with it?

Here is the issue...the SEVERITY of the injury does not matter. What matters is their presence.

Another poster tried claiming these are proof he shouldn't have feared for his life combined with his substantial MMA training (1 year and he was a cup cake...not a real fighter). But that is a slippery slope argument. In the "heat of the moment," you do not get to determine the severity of the injuries. Only that they are occurring. There was plenty of blood, and he had a broken nose. I'm sure he was aware of the blood at least.

I would say that those are enough evidence to act in defense. Personally? I don't think T would have the ability to keep me down. But I have substantially more training than Zimmerman (BJJ since 2010). I carry concealed as well. That being said...IF someone broke my nose and cracked my skull and I was bleeding a lot? I'm probably going to treat them like a real threat. I would expect any reasonable person to do the same. Wouldn't you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

"Your post is dishonest in multiple ways." E

Being wrong is one thing.
Being wrong deliberately and knowingly is another.
You're accusing me of both.
And you are wrong about both.
And the character you so severely undermine when you make such false charge is your own, not mine.

If there's ANY factual error:
1) Quote my posted words.
2) Expose the error, and correct it.

You have disagreed. You have not refuted. And your squabble about the verb doesn't even rise to the level of laughable. It's just sad.

"And no, Zimmerman did not confess to pursuit. That is just more dishonesty on your part."

I quoted his words. Take it up with Sanford police.

"School boy? iLOL
Young criminal adult who's actions define him as a thug."

To qualify for the label "school boy" one must meet two independent tests. Fail either test, and he's not a school boy. Period.
a) He must be enrolled in school.

b) He must be below the age of adult emancipation, in Sanford Florida I believe that means age 18.

You can call him a thug, or a Martian, or a dancing girl for all I care. Unless I'm factually wrong, and I demand to be corrected if I am; then I'll continue to tell it like it is, as usual.
TM was at the time he was slain, a school boy.

"Thug"?
Ironic!
You're defending ZIMMERMAN ?!?!

Zimmerman's rap sheet is longer than Martin's!!!

You're making yourself look ridiculous!!

"Just more dishonesty again.
There was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part, only following."

I'm vastly too mature to fall for your bait; to squabble over the verb.
But for clarity of record, the only time TM ran was to put distance between himself and Zimmerman. Once the line of sight was broken, TM resumed his former stride.
In vivid contrast it was Z that ran to close on TM; to force the armed confrontation that resulted in the homicide.

Z exhibited the locomotive conduct necessary to force an armed confrontation of the school boy.
I couldn't possibly care less what verb meets your comfort level. If your comfort level is "following" so be it. It makes absolutely no difference what you call it.

We KNOW TM ran, because Z reported it to Sanford police.
We KNOW Z forced a confrontation, because of the injuries Z suffered when TM tried to defend himself from the adult, armed, night-stalker that forced the confrontation.

"And no. He went in a different direction than the one Trayvon went."

They met.
Call it any direction you like. I've already posted the graphic of their likely paths. You're welcome to review it.

"Had you paid attention to the evidence instead of your bias you would know that."

I was fully aware of it years ago. And I have never asserted ANYthing to the contrary. You are persuasively refuting a falsehood I never asserted. Please prove me wrong. QUOTE MY EXACT POSTED WORDS !! Good luck with that.

"Walking alone in the rain in the dark" b5

Oh! You mean like Zimmerman?

"looking into people's homes..."

Prove it.

"on THEIR LAWNS."

I've never heard of any official claim criminal trespass was involved. Whether it was an apartment complex, or co-ops, I've been lead to believe the path TM was on was a public access walkway.

"In a place where multiple break ins had occurred. Something Z was aware of."

And Z was acting even more suspicious than TM.

a) Z reportedly had applied for police work, and been rejected.

b) So Z gets his gun, and just night-stalks the first Black school boy he finds?

c) Walking home from the candy store is not illegal.

"You can't prove it."

Martin is dead.
I wasn't aware there was any doubt, any contest.
But I'll clear it up for you.
Against the advice of Sanford police dispatch, Z continued to locomote to force a confrontation w/ TM, and Z shot TM dead.

Any questions?

" LMAO! You got busted. "

U.S. federal law doesn't apply in Florida ?!

 

[blackjack50]

Being wrong is one thing.
Being wrong deliberately and knowingly is another.
You're accusing me of both.
And you are wrong about both.
And the character you so severely undermine when you make such false charge is your own, not mine.

If there's ANY factual error:
1) Quote my posted words.
2) Expose the error, and correct it.

You have disagreed. You have not refuted. And your squabble about the verb doesn't even rise to the level of laughable. It's just sad.

I quoted his words. Take it up with Sanford police.

To qualify for the label "school boy" one must meet two independent tests. Fail either test, and he's not a school boy. Period.
a) He must be enrolled in school.

b) He must be below the age of adult emancipation, in Sanford Florida I believe that means age 18.

You can call him a thug, or a Martian, or a dancing girl for all I care. Unless I'm factually wrong, and I demand to be corrected if I am; then I'll continue to tell it like it is, as usual.
TM was at the time he was slain, a school boy.

"Thug"?
Ironic!
You're defending ZIMMERMAN ?!?!

Zimmerman's rap sheet is longer than Martin's!!!

You're making yourself look ridiculous!!

I'm vastly too mature to fall for your bait; to squabble over the verb.
But for clarity of record, the only time TM ran was to put distance between himself and Zimmerman. Once the line of sight was broken, TM resumed his former stride.
In vivid contrast it was Z that ran to close on TM; to force the armed confrontation that resulted in the homicide.

Z exhibited the locomotive conduct necessary to force an armed confrontation of the school boy.
I couldn't possibly care less what verb meets your comfort level. If your comfort level is "following" so be it. It makes absolutely no difference what you call it.

We KNOW TM ran, because Z reported it to Sanford police.
We KNOW Z forced a confrontation, because of the injuries Z suffered when TM tried to defend himself from the adult, armed, night-stalker that forced the confrontation.

They met.
Call it any direction you like. I've already posted the graphic of their likely paths. You're welcome to review it.

I was fully aware of it years ago. And I have never asserted ANYthing to the contrary. You are persuasively refuting a falsehood I never asserted. Please prove me wrong. QUOTE MY EXACT POSTED WORDS !! Good luck with that.

Oh! You mean like Zimmerman?

Prove it.

I've never heard of any official claim criminal trespass was involved. Whether it was an apartment complex, or co-ops, I've been lead to believe the path TM was on was a public access walkway.

And Z was acting even more suspicious than TM.

a) Z reportedly had applied for police work, and been rejected.

b) So Z gets his gun, and just night-stalks the first Black school boy he finds?

c) Walking home from the candy store is not illegal.

Martin is dead.
I wasn't aware there was any doubt, any contest.
But I'll clear it up for you.
Against the advice of Sanford police dispatch, Z continued to locomote to force a confrontation w/ TM, and Z shot TM dead.

Any questions?

U.S. federal law doesn't apply in Florida ?!

Do you have something against quoting people in your posts? Or do you just not know how? NOT a criticism. Just willing to show you how. It will make discussions for YOU easier to follow.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

Here is the issue...the SEVERITY of the injury does not matter. What matters is their presence.

Another poster tried claiming these are proof he shouldn't have feared for his life combined with his substantial MMA training (1 year and he was a cup cake...not a real fighter). But that is a slippery slope argument. In the "heat of the moment," you do not get to determine the severity of the injuries. Only that they are occurring. There was plenty of blood, and he had a broken nose. I'm sure he was aware of the blood at least.

I would say that those are enough evidence to act in defense. Personally? I don't think T would have the ability to keep me down. But I have substantially more training than Zimmerman (BJJ since 2010). I carry concealed as well. That being said...IF someone broke my nose and cracked my skull and I was bleeding a lot? I'm probably going to treat them like a real threat. I would expect any reasonable person to do the same. Wouldn't you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh,I get that.

I am "ok" with the self defense justification. Even though his injuries were more "boo boos" that life threatening.

Just saying that I do not feel bad for any of Zimmermans issues that have happened after the shooting. He was trying to be some sort of neighborhood hero and started following a kid walking down the street in the dark. Just another idiot with bad judgement with a gun.

A gun can be a useful tool. But in the hands of a useless tool....it gives that person (like you said a "cupcake") a feeling of empowerment. empowerment without judgement rarely plays out well.

 

[blackjack50]

.

1) Oh! You mean like Zimmerman?

Zimmerman was in his truck acting as night watch. Stupidly. But he was.

2) Prove it.

Don't have to. It is what Z said. You can't disprove it. That's all that matters.

3) I've never heard of any official claim criminal trespass was involved. Whether it was an apartment complex, or co-ops, I've been lead to believe the path TM was on was a public access walkway.

This is the information we are given by Zimmerman. That you can't disprove.

And Z was acting even more suspicious than TM.

Then why didn't Trayvon call the police?

a) Z reportedly had applied for police work, and been rejected.

b) So Z gets his gun, and just night-stalks the first Black school boy he finds?

c) Walking home from the candy store is not illegal.

A) irrelevant to the case. Trayvon was suspended for multiple violations and had texts involving fighting and drug use.
B) night stalking is not a criminal charge. Stalking is. And the code you attempted to apply does NOT as it requires interstate stalking. And the state Florida law on stalking requires repeated actions. Not a singular incident.

Further it would be called "stalking." Not "night stalking." This is propagandist talk trying to inflate the charge. It would be like calling something a "murder death kill."

C) he wasn't coming back from a candy store. Further coming back from a gas station or convenience store and walking alone at night in the the dark looking into homes is not illegal. It just looks suspicious. Hence the cops were called.

Martin is dead.
I wasn't aware there was any doubt, any contest.
But I'll clear it up for you.
Against the advice of Sanford police dispatch, Z continued to locomote to force a confrontation w/ TM, and Z shot TM dead.

So you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is EXACTLY what happened?

Any questions?

Yea. Do you understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means? You can't prove your claim is 100% true. You can't prove it is even "most likely" true. Further...you need to disprove Z's claim. And you can't.

Further. Do you even understand what you would be charging Z with and what you need to prove that?

U.S. federal law doesn't apply in Florida ?!

Only if the law applies. The law you quoted is an interstate stalking charge.

Interstate.

Interstate.

Interstate.

Do you know what that means?

Inter

State

NOT

INTRA

BUT

INTER

STATE.

a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “between,” “among,” “in the midst of,” “mutually,” “reciprocally,” “together,” “during” ( intercept; interest); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( intercom; interdepartmental). Origin of inter-

As in INTERSTATE:

existing or carried on between states.

Do you know what that means? So unless you can show Zimmerman traveled across state lines or from an Indian territory...this was a DOA argument. I'm guessing you know this too and just want to double down on the stupidity? Or are you adult enough to recognize the failure there?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

Oh,I get that.

I am "ok" with the self defense justification. Even though his injuries were more "boo boos" that life threatening.

Just saying that I do not feel bad for any of Zimmermans issues that have happened after the shooting. He was trying to be some sort of neighborhood hero and started following a kid walking down the street in the dark. Just another idiot with bad judgement with a gun.

A gun can be a useful tool. But in the hands of a useless tool....it gives that person (like you said a "cupcake") a feeling of empowerment. empowerment without judgement rarely plays out well.

I agree. He was 100% morally in the wrong. And in incompetent dumbass. But his case is important in that he CANNOT be convicted on speculation. That is a dangerous precedent. And he deserved to have his ass kicked. But legally...that has some problems. If we could go around kicking the **** out of dumbasses...we wouldn't be able to do our jobs we would be so busy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Sigh. You just don't get it man.

Zimmerman did not have to prove...beyond a reasonable doubt...that Trayvon threw the first punch. Every theory. Every bit of evidence AGAINST Zimmerman...it is all speculation. You can't be convicted on speculation.

Z provided evidence for his claim. As stated by YOU and YOUR SOURCE...it does NOT have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." So. His evidence of being knocked down, witness statements to Trayvon's position, and the fact that he had injuries and lacerations consistent with being knocked down and struck.

There is NOT enough evidence to overturn his side of the story. Anything else is PURE speculation. As stated "beyond a reasonable doubt." The state...the prosecution...nor anyone else...can overturn his story. There is nothing there but speculation. You can't be convicted on speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sigh.. you just don't get it man. and its obvious you don't want to get it.

Zimmerman did not have to prove...beyond a reasonable doubt...that Trayvon threw the first punch.

UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman has to prove that he Reasonably believed that his life was in IMMINENT danger of death or grave bodily harm and that his actions were necessary and reasonable to prevent this.

From the florida statutes:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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.

His evidence of being knocked down,

BAck up a step.. what evidence is there that he was defending and not the aggressor? That's part of the statute...

Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself,

So where is the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself and had not initiated or provoked the use of force by martin?

So provide that evidence first..that is REQUIRED under the LAW.