George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was watching some program last night and the host listed the things that the prosecution had to prove to show 2nd-degree murder and manslaughter. For BOTH, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did NOT shoot in self-defense. If he shot because he was in fear for his life or in fear of great bodily harm, the jury has to acquit him.

That is good BUT they have to be sure that the jury knows this.
 
There is 0 proof that GZ started the fight and according to state witness it is TM that speaks to GZ first. First contact.

There is no proof whatsoever that GZ attacked TM. None.

The evidence is that TM beat on GZ. GZ was not injured until TM put his hands on him. TM had him on the ground and was overpowering him, Hurting him.

All the law says it that GZ had to have reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death.
That is there. by law that is there.

BBM...with all due respect (and in evidence and a fact), there is a gunshot wound to the heart that GZ himself admits firing. If that isn't GZ attacking TM, I don't know what is.

There is simply no proof as to who started the altercation.

ZERO proof. That's why even though I strongly believe GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence does not support it and therefore I don't think GZ should be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I would rather one guilty person go free than one innocent man be convicted.

My opinion is that GZ is guilty.

Only the jury gets to say so legally one way or the other.
 
The state has proven behind a shadow of doubt that GZ was the agressor!!! All this blithering by the <modsnip> O'Mara won't cut it.
He has tried to make TM look like a Guilty ...and he was NOT. IMO
Here you have a NW Perp///more deadly and dangerous than any alleged , . IMO

There is still reasonable doubt IMO. A lot of it.
 
MOM is doing, IMO, a slamdunk job so far. He is presenting the case, clear and concisely. Makes the prosecution, IMO, look like amateurs, for NOT presenting facts.

As a PP stated, you can't convict a man of murder based in what ifs.

OMO
 
Not the facts in the case. TM was not shot for having skittles. He was not shot because he was walking home. He was shot because he was beating on a man in the dark and he shot him to defend his person.

The shopping at 7-11, the walking, the skittles have nothing what to do with the fact that TM is dead.

The facts are, He beat on GZ, and GZ shot him after being beaten up in the dark backed down on the sidewalked, No way to get away.

EXACTLY. GZ never said TM used Skittles or anything but his FISTS to attack him.
The image of Skittles and Fruit juice (and to a certain extent a hoodie) along with a 12yr old Trayvon is used over and over to create instant judgement. It just doesn't matter WHAT TM bought or where he went. It only matters what happened when he attacked GZ and was shot because of those actions. IMO
 
The state has proven behind a shadow of doubt that GZ was the agressor!!! All this blithering by the <modsnip> O'Mara won't cut it.
He has tried to make TM look like a Guilty ...and he was NOT. IMO
Here you have a NW Perp///more deadly and dangerous than any alleged , . IMO

I agree with you. And it's not emotion. GZ is not credible in my opinion. I don't believe his story. So I don't think it's self defense. TM is dead. We know GZ shot him. This is manslaughter if you don't believe the self defense claims. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BBM...with all due respect (and in evidence and a fact), there is a gunshot would to the heart that GZ himself admits firing. If that isn't GZ attacking TM, I don't know what is.

There is simply no proof as to who started the altercation.

ZERO proof. That's why even though I strongly believe GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence does not support it and therefore I don't think GZ should be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I would rather one guilty person go free than one innocent man be convicted.

My opinion is that GZ is guilty.

Only the jury gets to say so legally one way or the other.

Believing what I bolded, as a juror, you would be bound to a finding of not guilty. This is what the general public doesn't seem to understand. Making the statement you did, is a finding of not guilty.

IMHO
 
I have never listened to the Sean Hannity interview before until the State played portions of it in their closing. I went to listen to the interview and I must say GZ did himself a disservice in doing that interview. Here is what I picked up that just doesn&#8217;t make sense and sounds like GZ is making things up.

Sean Hannity: Was that you screaming for help?
GZ: Yes sir it was.
SH: You told the police that he put his hand over your mouth, do you think that was to silence you?
GZ: Yes sir, uh, I believe he, uh from what the investigators told me, he (TM) knew that I was talking to the police (so TM, being dead, told the investigators that he knew GZ was talking to the police???? Am I hearing that correctly? wow

SH: Do you remember when you reached for your weapon?
GZ: at that point I realized it wasn&#8217;t my gun, it wasn&#8217;t his gun, it was THEE gun

SH: Do you regret getting out of the car to follow TM?
GZ: No sir
SH: Do you regret you had a gun that night?
GZ: No sir
SH: Do you feel you would not be here if you didn&#8217;t have that gun?
GZ: No sir, I feel it was all God&#8217;s plan and for me to second guess it and judge it (I&#8217;m confused by that statement. So is GZ saying he didn&#8217;t need to shoot TM because it&#8217;s God plan for him to live? If so then why on earth did he shoot TM????? If God wanted him to live he would have lived on matter what TM did. Make sense?

SH: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that time has passed a bit?
GZ: No sir


When he said he wouldn&#8217;t change anything that night, this tells me that there is no regard for TM&#8217;s life. If I had learned that I killed someone in self defense, I would look back and wish that I had done things differently to have prevented that especially after I found out that the person I just killed wasn&#8217;t doing anything wrong. It&#8217;s like he still views TM as a &#8220;a$$hole, f..king punk. No regrets, none, nada, zilch! Then at the end of the interview he back tracks and said he misunderstood the question &#8220;about regretting anything&#8221; and to me it&#8217;s because he was prompted to so he doesn&#8217;t look bad to the public.
 
BBM...with all due respect (and in evidence and a fact), there is a gunshot would to the heart that GZ himself admits firing. If that isn't GZ attacking TM, I don't know what is.

There is simply no proof as to who started the altercation.

ZERO proof. That's why even though I strongly believe GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence does not support it and therefore I don't think GZ should be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I would rather one guilty person go free than one innocent man be convicted.

My opinion is that GZ is guilty.

Only the jury gets to say so legally one way or the other.

The act of shooting someone does not automatically mean someone is attacking that person. That throws out the whole notion of self defense to begin with. It also completely ignores the circumstances on how the altercation started.
 
Most of the facts support George's version. He had injuries to his nose and head. Even though the injuries weren't severe, after being hit so many times, George felt that they were. There were grass stains on the knees of Trayvon's pants and on the back of George's clothing. This supports John Good's statements that Trayvon was on top, on his knees, MMA style. George was lying on his back. According to Rachel's testimony, Trayvon told her that he was at the back of his father's girlfriend's house 2-3 minutes before he saw Zimmerman. He could have been inside in less than a minute. Since his body was found 70 yards away, he must have circled back toward the T.


BBM Right now I am in back of MY house....am I in the driveway? the vegetable garden? the gazebo? the pool? the patio? am I in my car or in the truck? on the mower? get where I am going with this?
 
I agree with you. And it's not emotion. GZ is not credible in my opinion. I don't believe his story. So I don't think it's self defense. TM is dead. We know GZ shot him. This is manslaughter if you don't believe the self defense claims. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't convict a man simply because you don't believe him. You have to prove why his story is false.
 
The state has proven behind a shadow of doubt that GZ was the agressor!!! All this blithering by the <modsnip> O'Mara won't cut it.
He has tried to make TM look like a Guilty ...and he was NOT. IMO
Here you have a NW Perp///more deadly and dangerous than any alleged , . IMO

What Dibsy said&#8593;&#8593;&#8593;

:thumbup:

Sent from my LG Spirit using Tapatalk 2
 
Believing what I bolded, as a juror, you would be bound to a finding of not guilty. This is what the general public doesn't seem to understand. Making the statement you did, is a finding of not guilty.

IMHO

Not guilty of murder. Not manslaughter. IMO GZ's action were reckless and led to TM's death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is no way for anybody besides George Zimmerman to know who started the physical confrontation because NOBODY SAW IT. It could have been George, or it could have been Trayvon. We have two choices. The LAW says that if one choice points to innocence and the other points to guilt, the jurors MUST choose the one that points to INNOCENCE.

By the way, Rachel did not tell anyone that Trayvon said something like "Get off" until the trial started. She left that out for over a year.
 
"Let me know if he does anything else"........keep looking at him.
 
BBM

You're getting it backwards. The state has to disprove GZ's version beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove it wasn't self defense. They have not done that IMO. In that case, you have to aquit under the law.

Again, my comment is not regarding guilt or innocence of the the defendant. All through our discussion there have been people consistently stating that it is fact that TM was the aggressor, seeking out GZ, but there is absolutely no evidence to back this up.

Personally I don't think this case should be heard on who threw the first punch but many people seem to be under the impression that if TM did stand his ground and confront GZ then GZ was within his rights to shoot as he was in fear of his life and many are stating that it is fact that TM was the original agressor. Whether he was or not I honestly can't say! I don't know, and that is because there is absolutely no evidence to prove he was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
2,085
Total visitors
2,270

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,128
Members
228,014
Latest member
Back2theGardenAgain
Back
Top