The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Yeh, that's the wicket I'm sticky about, re was that advice or demand (clearly I take it as advisement) and I don't know the import of advisement from a dispatcher. I assume he could somehow overrule/disregard due to some kind of acute cause.

What cause. Well, a skittle packing person wandering in the rain.
Oh, and black kid with hoodie.

You mean a black kid with a hoodie now is a suspect of a crime?

WOW!

I remain free to offer commentary on the topic,
regardless of your wishes.





David

U don't even understand your own post.

But, not a surprise.

Or maybe it is, as I used to watch tv in olden times (when they were more subtle, or maybe it was, more blunt).

Do you remember what they were selling in the commercials, Thomas? I'd be interested.

Why do you, et al, respond?

True, and you look more stupid and sillier with every post. Nothing you post is relevant to this case.

I agree. They did look desperate, and not well organized. I didn't think they gained anything from that witness.

Amazing, that after covering both Zimmerman's bleeding nose and his mouth, with both his hands, Martin managed not to get Zimmerman's DNA on his hands, or even under his fingernails. Could George not be telling the truth?

The prosecution scored with this one.

Because, sometimes, not often, but sometimes, FF seems to work up the courage to try and address the truth, Osso.

I 'm throwing u into the garbage can of cognition,
which is slightly above Ignore.

Your ad hominem sludge is not worth it.

But when one posts as much BS as you do, rational people tend to ignore them.

Nothing unusual. Car insurance. Anti-depressants. Cialis. Reverse mortgages. That kind of thing.

Flori-DUH legal experts, most likely case is that GZ walks:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/03/how-is-the-prosecution-doing-in-zimmerman-case-even-this-msnbc-panel-agreeing-not-much-expectation-he-will-be-found-guilty/

Napolitano: 'Prosecution shoots self in both feet...'

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/judge-napolitano-says-the-zimmerman-prosecution-shot-themselves-in-both-feet-with-this-seemingly-odd-decision/

I understand that, if you had a brother, hed also look like Bozo.

Thanks for the link, Gunga.
I must AGREE with Napolitano and Ferrer, JJ.
What thay said is obvious.

I suspect that, in common with the police,
the prosecution feels guilty qua persecuting Zimmy
because thay know that he was and is a really nice,
civic minded guy whose convenience is being
sacrificed to a racially driven political decision
to please the blacks. If he had killed a white,
he 'd not have been subjected to this.

The prosecution (tacitly) knows that Zimmy
is a fine fellow who contributed his own time,
for free, in an effort to suppress the incidence
of burglary, a noble quest. In the act thereof,
when he asked a suspicious individual
what he was doing, while awaiting the imminent
arrival on the scene of police any second,
he was violently, abruptly, unexpectedly
and IRRATIONALLY attacked, having
his head repeatedly slammed against the cement
until he was able to get off a shot into the lunatic.

Its hard for any fair minded person
not to sympathize with Zimmy.
He 's a good fellow (tho I don't approve
of his anemic choice of firepower).
If I am ever able to question Zimmy,
I 'll ask: "how the hell did u decide
to carry a feeble 9mm pistol??
Was it the soft, gentle recoil??
Get some decent firepower!"





David

I would ask David and others to come off their hobby horses a minute and put themselves in Trayvon Martin shoes the night he was shot and killed. Ask themselves if they were a seventeen year old boy walking home from the store in the dark and the rain and a man started following them, wouldn't that make them feel somewhat threatened? Didn't Trayvon Martin have any rights to defend himself from a stranger following him?

I don't know if Zimmerman is going to get convicted. The law seems stacked against Trayvon Martin because he didn't have a gun and just shot Zimmerman rather than hitting him.

If Zimmerman was really just wanting to "look after the neighborhood" rather than wanting to make sure another one "didn't get away." He should have stayed in the car and waited for the police. Having failed to do that, he should have told Trayvon Martin why he was following him when Trayvon Martin asked him. He didn't he just said, "what are you doing here?" as though Trayvon Martin didn't have a right to be there. We don't really know who threw the first punch so to speak, but Trayvon Martin had just as much right to defend himself as anybody else.

Do you not know what an abrasion is? They bleed. Ever skinned your knee and it bled?

The statute DOES require some degree of threat before the use of lethal force. An abrasion on the head is about as bad as a skinned knee. If you want to argue that skinned knees allow for you to kill someone, go ahead and argue that. It doesn't make you reasonable and cautious as required by jury instructions.

And then you acknowledge Zimmerman's head wasn't being beaten into concrete when he pulled the trigger so it makes your entire argument about Zimmerman shooting him to stop his head being beaten into concrete false.

OK, but I don't have a horse.
I like them, but horses r not my hobby.



Yes, I wud NOT feel threatened.
I have been followed 1OOOs of times, un-eventfully
and I did not feel threatened.
It is irrational to deem following someone to be a threat
(unless maybe u r getting ready to commit a crime
and u r uncomfortable with having witnesses around).
Following someone is moral, its decent, its legal & its honorable.





Yes, he did NOT
until an attack actually began (e.g., a mugging).







U don't, huh ?




That was HIS decision, not to have one.
I don't think its wise to go around in pubic without a gun; irresponsible.
I began my gun collection when I was 8.





Anyone who commits homicide better have a GOOD reason for doing it.
It is part of the human experience that everyone
will be followed many, many, many times
with no reason for violence, nor even for foul language.






U can have that opinion,
if u want; Zimmy was not bound to agree with your opinion.

He was free to have his OWN opinion
of what to do, and he DID.





Maybe; did Martin ASK him anything??






There is nothing rong with that; free speech.
Free country. Happy 4th of July.








Zimmy TOLD us; I see no problem with that.






"Defend" from WHAT???????
If someone asks u a question, that is not an attack.
That is not a danger. If it were an attack,
then school teachers 'd be attacking their students
many times a day and the students shud be slamming
the teachers' heads on the floor.
If asking questions is an attack,
then US Census takers shud be armed
in expectation of having their heads
slammed on the street every 1O years.


If someone asks me a question in the street
( which has actually happened many, many times, for directions )
I might answer it, or not, but there is not much chance
that I will slam his head on the street. If I did THAT,
then I 'd EXPECT to get shot for that, and rightly so.

Unless Martin believed that Zimmy was un-armed,
he shud have EXPECTED to get shot for what he did; obvious.

Revelette, if Martin had done the same thing
to a black, in the same circumstances,
do u believe that the black victim
whose head Martin was slamming
on the street 'd have acted DIFFERENTLY???

Woud a black have patiently allowed Martin
to continue beating his head on the street, instead of blasting him??
I don't believe that the blacks 'd have put up with that.
Maybe u disagree.





David

Well, I would feel threatened if someone was following me in the dark. I am sure Trayvon Martin, a skinny seventeen year old, felt threatened too.



Yea, he asked him why he was following him.

And no one was slamming anyone's head against the concrete no matter how many times you state it.