Zimmerman Trial (Weekend Edition) READ THREAD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POSTING

I think the difference is "reasonable". I think most people would find it reasonable to defend yourself with force when being physically assaulted. I think others spin the narrative and try and twist the law, with out showing a SINGLE CASE FILE , and convince themselves that a neighborhood watch following and observing someone in his own neighborhood is grounds to be physically assaulted. Its (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy and thats why no case law supports it.

- - - Updated - - -

According to whom?

 

Homicide has been proven.

 

You could not be more wrong.

It is the STATE'S BURDEN, to prove that Zimmerman DID NOT act in SELF DEFENSE, BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT.

A bit CONFUSED about the law, are we?

 

I don't know if you have a daughter.

Hypothetically if you did and she was being followed, and maced the guy, would she be justified?

 

No one has ever disputed that Zimmerman killed Martin= DUH....no kidding?

The state has UTTERLY FAILED to make its CASE.

It cannot refute, either through EVIDENCIARY FINDING, or TESTIMONY, any of Zimmerman's claims of self defense.

It is EMBARASSINGLY OBVIOUS why Angela Corey DODGED the Grand Jury with this trumped up, poltically-motivated, crock of emotional nonsense.

 

A fight would mean two guys punching each other. If one guy cold-cocks the other and then straddles the guy on the ground and pounds him, this is not a fight, its an attack. I am watching the trial to see if indeed this is what happened. Do you have some kind of reason to think that the two were engaged in a fight?

 

Not if she appeared to be CASING HOUSES, in an area with a SPATE of recent BURGALRIES/HOME INVASIONS, and MACED the NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH CAPTAIN, for seeing what she was up to.

Especially if this followed her THIRD SCHOOL SUSPENSION in a YEAR, GETTING CAUGHT with STOLEN JEWELRY, DOPE,and what the school cop called a BURGLARY TOOL;

NO I would not say she was JUSTIFIED, and I would be wondering WTF her should-have-been-grounded-for-life ass was doing out at night anyway...

 

First cop on the scene, under OATH: "Trayvon Martin had grass stains on the knees of his pants. George Zimmerman's clothes were WET ON THE BACK."

Gee...what does that tell us, if we apply COMMON SENSE, instead of illogical acrobatics...?

 

Nope. Do you have any to prove it wasn't?

 

Just followed and did nothing else? Absolutely not. No right whatsoever to mace someone who appears to be following you.

 

The prosecution needs to PROVE THAT IT WAS.

That said:

Trial testimony of PROSECUTION'S WITNESS, the first cop on the scene, under OATH: "Trayvon Martin had grass stains on the knees of his pants. George Zimmerman's clothes were WET ON THE BACK."


Gee...what does that tell us, if we apply COMMON SENSE, instead of illogical acrobatics...?

 

Defence doesn't need proof, prosecution needs proof.

 

She looked "suspicious".

The jury doesn't know any of that.

You do realize the judgment will be based on evidence presented in the case?

- - - Updated - - -

Not if the jury thinks Zimmerman isn't being honest.

 

Sore from moving the goalposts yet? THIS is the question your ASKED, I answered:

I answered THAT EXACT QUESTION, with this:

Trouble keeping track of your own flailings?

 

I have watched the entire trial and can tell you as well as can anyone else who has been watching trial objectively that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Z chased trayvon....and such a scenario also defies logic and common sense.

As most should know by now Z was fat, out of shape has some medical problems and is on several prescription meds ...which would prevent him giving chase even if he had wanted to. All Z did and this is supported by evidence was to call the nem number....non emergency number to report a suspicious person walking in the rain at night in Z's neighborhood. The dispatcher asked Z which direction the suspect was headed....as the suspect had begun to leave the area in a rather rapid fashion kinda of a skip...like type thing as described by Z....Z thinking the suspect was leaving the area got out of his truck in order to try and see which direction the suspect was headed so he could inform dispatch. When the dispatcher heard the wind in the phone he asked Z if he was following trayvon....z replied yes....the dispatcher's exact words were...."We do not need you to do that" whereupon Z replied O.K. Then dispatch wanted to know the address and Z did not know the exact address at that location so he walked a little further up in order to get to where he could see some house numbers. Then on his way back to his truck is when Trayvon confronted and attacked him.

 

no he doesn't, that is not his burden. the state has to prove he wasn't. they can't just offer an alternative theory. they have to disprove his account and prove their theory otherwise it is resolved in favor of the defense.

 

What if he looks like he's trying to catch her?

 

The prosecution always has to prove its case whether the defence is honest or not and every judge makes it clear that the prosecution must prove its case. Insisting otherwise doesn;t make your arguments any better, you just sound like all those zimmerphobes who just make up what they think the law is.

- - - Updated - - -

describe the scene in detail.

 

You didn't answer you gave some rabble about (*)(*)(*)(*) you read in the newspaper.

 

Yes an eye witness that the dark skin man was on top and that Zimmerman has wounds to the back of his head that matches his story as well as a busted nose.

 

Please explain how I "did not answer the question" you asked, whether or not MY DAUGHTER 'would be justified" in MACING the guy, once I applied the SAME CRITERIA/CIRCUMSTANCES that Zimmerman has REPEATEDLY asserted, under oath?


The recent spate of BURGLARIES in a HIGH CRIME AREA, (Twin Lakes) of a HIGH CRIME CITY, (Sanford) are a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.


Your OBTUSE attempt to DISTORT the facts of the case really fools no one.

Martin was not "just walkingdownj the street"..with NO OTHER FACTORS AT WORK.

 

The prosecution shows the defense is lying. After that the jury decides. That's how it works in real life.

Here's your scene -

Lets say Trayvon was a female.

 

Zimemrman had no Idea who Martin was.

All you know is George thought he looked suspicious.

Well tell me what the (*)(*)(*)(*) does that mean?

Maybe Martin was looking at the landscaping not the house, maybe he was looking at the curtains. Do you know?

 

Now let's say Zimmerman was an elderly female paraplegic. Der....

Hands raw from clutching at straws?

 

No that poof of a fight. Not who was hitting\hit who.

- - - Updated - - -

Then he wouldn't be chasing anyone.

All I did was change martins sex.

Hardly grasping at straws.