The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

in American law sworn testimony is evidence, and Zimmerman gave testimony that he was violently attacked by Martin. are you ignorant or are you lying again?

Zimmerman never testified at his trial...

Had you watched the trial, you might know that.

The version of events that Zimmerman gave to the police was never subjected to cross-examination by the state at trial. He never gave "sworn testimony".

There is no physical evidence to support the contention that Zimmerman was "violently attacked" by Martin. There were no other witnesses to how that confrontation started, other than the two people involved, and Zimmerman killed the one who could have testified against him. So, the physical evidence is at odds with Zimmerman's version of events, and that raises considerable doubt about his credibility. Had he taken the stand at trial, and given sworn testimony, which would have been subjected to cross-examination, the inconsistencies in his account would have been much more apparent.

But he never gave "sworn testimony"...

Neither. Well, Hawkeye, which of those will you admit to about yourself?

You continually destroy your own credibility with your misinformed/uninformed remarks.

zimmerman signed a sworn written statement which was entered as evidence.

sure now that you have been caught you go back and cover your tracks.

btw: the fact that only Zimmerman had struggle injuries was widely considered to be physical evidence that Martin was the attacker.

Hawkeye, I'm not covering my tracks, you're not following this thread. Go back and read the post I linked to in my response to oralloy--which is the post you were responding to. There is no physical evidence to support Zimmerman's (or oralloy's) contention that Zimmerman was "violently attacked".

Zimmerman's "struggle injuries"--which were extremely minor provide no evidence as to how the altercation started--nor was that clarified at trial. It is equally plausible that Martin was reacting defensively because of his own fears that Zimmerman intended to harm him after he had stalked him in the dark. The bullet wound in his chest certainly would confirm such fears on Martin's part.

There is no evidence that Martin was an "attacker" rather than someone who was trying to defend his own life from a menacing stranger who had stalked him in the dark, for no apparent reason, and who never identified himself, or his motives, to the frightened teen.

And Zimmerman never took the stand so he could be cross-examined about that statement he gave to the police. He never gave sworn testimony at his trial. You're the one who's trying to cover his own tracks. You were incorrect in what you previously said, and you're too stubborn, or embarrassed, to be able to admit that.

You always wind up with egg on your face.

that statement is debatable. your statement that there is no evidence that Zimmerman was violently attacked is a lie.

If Martin was defending himself from Zimmermans attack, Zimmerman would have been found guilty of murder. Instead he was cleared and found innocent. Witness testimony had Martin on top of Zimmerman. To suggest anything else happened is grasping for a truth that doesn't exist. Following is not attacking. Bleeding wounds is being attacked.

For those who are of the law and order type, it would have been interesting to see what a Grand Jury would have done.

martin being on top of Zimmerman beating him does not mean that Martin was the physical aggressor. we dont know what happened before that. however given that first strikes are usually successful if zimmerman did strike first Martin should have been marked. he was not.

I don't disagree with you about that.

But I think it's important to realize that Zimmerman's defense team, as well as his internet supporters, played on those racial stereotypes, and tried to link Trayvon Martin to them, and used those race based fears, not only to generate sympathy for Zimmerman, and to justify his actions, but to actually get him acquitted--and that strategy worked.

This case has always been about race, and racial fears, and racial mistrust.

Someone like oralloy, and BillRM, the people who already carry guns for self-protection, would likely be more susceptible to buying into such fears of crimes committed by these stereotypical young black "hoodlums" and "thugs", and even though Trayvon Martin, a middle class black teen, with a devoted hard-working father, a college graduate hard-working mother, and an older brother who was a college senior, did not fit into that stereotype, distortions, innuendo, and downright disinformation about him, disseminated all over the internet by Zimmerman's supporters, effectively helped to have him perceived that way. Assassinating Martin's character was part of the defense strategy. They couldn't afford to have Martin, an unarmed kid just walking home from a trip to the store, viewed with any sympathy--they had to connect him, in any way possible, with those stereotypical young black "hoodlums" and "thugs".

Someone like oralloy is simply a willing dupe for this sort of propaganda campaign. That's why he continues to voice its message.

This case has always been about race. The verdict was also, at least partly, about race--it's not coincidental that the lone minority member on the jury was the longest hold-out in favor of a conviction, and she's the one who subsequently said, "George Zimmerman got away with murder." The other juror who has spoken out said, regarding Rachel Jeantel's testimony and last phone conversation with Martin, "That's the way those people talk, the way they are"--calling them "those people" tells you that blacks are someone alien to this woman, she really doesn't connect to those people. It's easier for that sort of person to identify with Zimmerman, and to connect Martin with the stereotyped image of a black criminal type--the type who invaded the apartment of one of the last defense witnesses. Covert racial factors influenced the way the jury saw this case, and the defense capitalized on that.

So, unfortunately, oralloy isn't the only one who buys into such negative racial stereotyping.

Read this article about how Zimmerman's "talking points" were promoted in the media--it was all about race--and look at the kind of person who was spouting them.

George Zimmerman's Biggest Defender: A Racist With a Criminal Past
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/frank-taaffe-george-zimmerman-racist-white-voice

Similar racially slanted views have been very openly and very publicly expressed by both Robert Zimmerman Jr. and Robert Zimmerman Sr.--George's brother and father. In fact, it's the racial animus that the Zimmerman family keeps voicing that suggests why the DOJ should continue to investigate whether federal charges are indicated in this case. Zimmerman's family has not done him a favor with their clearly biased remarks. Attacking, and casting aspersions on, African Americans, is hardly the best way to defend their son and brother. They continue to make this case all about race.

So, while I wish oralloy was alone in his racially stereotypical thinking, unfortunately, that's not the case. We do have a racial divide, and continuing unresolved racial issues in our country, and these do seep into, and affect, and infect, our criminal justice system. And they did in this case as well, on many different levels, and that was apparent in how this case was handled from the night of the shooting onward. Had the police known immediately that Trayvon Martin was a teenage guest in that community, and not any sort of intruder, everything might have been regarded differently, including how carefully the crime scene evidence was collected and preserved, and including the decision not to immediately arrest Zimmerman. Even the police may have bought into racial stereotypes that night, and it may have affected their actions.

Of course, none of this makes oralloy's nuttiness any easier to take.

What is amazing to me in search of a "better" story how many out right lies that the news media was guilt of putting out beside spinning away with half truths.

Not even the former USSR Pravda could had done a better job of spinning this story then most of the US news media did.

Firefly is just a tiny tiny example of the spinners surrounding this event.

Stop attacking my character as a distraction from the fact you have yet to supply convincing evidence, particularly physical evidence, that Zimmerman was "violently attacked".

The word of a self-serving liar, who demonstrated just how deceitful and dishonest he is, by concealing assets and a second passport from the judge presiding over his bail hearing, so he could skip the country and avoid prosecution (which was the judge's conclusion)--is hardly credible "evidence".

A single blow to the nose, which might well have been Martin's attempt to defend himself from a menacing stranger, is not a violent attack--it's an action of self-defense. And that single blow resulted in such minor injury that no medical treatment, at any time, was required. Zimmerman had no injuries to substantiate any claim of being "violently attacked".

And, let's not forget, Zimmerman was the one with the documented history of aggressive acts, not Martin.

Frank! It took me fifteen minutes to regain conciseness after reading your post.

Just having a bit of fun.

Meh. Frank was just lashing out because he doesn't like being dismissed as a dishonest kook.

It never occurs to him to just stop being a dishonest kook.

We know that Mr. Zimmerman stopped trailing after Trayvon once the dispatcher advised him that they didn't need him to do that.

We know that some three minutes after Mr. Zimmerman stopped following him, Trayvon came back to Mr. Zimmerman's position, and the fight started then.

this is Zimmermans story here

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/27/george-zimmerman-murder-trial-virtual-neighborhood

however my memory has it that there were no witnesses to Martins path, so who knows. Firefly often straight up lies, but she is right that Zimmerman does not exactly have a sterling rep for truth telling.

Give it a rest, oralloy. You're unable to distinguish between what you believe and what are incontrovertible facts.

Zimmerman doesn't seem to have ever stopped following Martin. According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony, she was talking to Martin when Zimmerman came up to Martin and confronted him, and she heard Zimmerman's voice. And, the last thing she heard Martin say (to Zimmerman) was, "Get off of me," indicating it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor. Zimmerman may have grabbed onto Martin, his arm or his sleeve, making it Zimmerman who stated the altercation. "Get off of me," is not the utterance of an "attacker."

aka "according to another will known liar...."

Jeantel's lies were minor, about her age, why she didn't go to Martin's wake, etc. , almost "white lies" and nowhere near as serious as Zimmerman's elaborate scheme to deceive a judge so he'd be able to skip the country and avoid prosecution for a murder rap, and she owned up to, and explained them.

And her trial testimony was credible. The defense didn't shake her account of events, or succeed in discounting her credibility--and they tried very hard to do that. And she couldn't have been a more reluctant witness--she clearly never wanted to get involved in this legal case, she was really dragged into it. She was the only ear-witness to what Martin was thinking, and doing, and saying, before he was killed. And her credible testimony indicated that Martin was apprehensive about Zimmerman following him, and was trying to avoid him, and that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin, and that Martin's last words she heard--"Get off of me"-- indicated Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Ahhh...Oralloy claims that every word I utter is a lie...and we must pay heed, because Oralloy is an honorable man.

Do we not all love him...for with each post he brings joy...and above all, he is an honorable man.

He says I am a liar...a liar in every word. And who can doubt him, for Oralloy is indeed an honorable man.

Yes...each of us here in A2K clutch him to our breast...for he is intelligent and kind and imparts wisdom with every post.

And above all...we know him to be an honorable man.

that was not the consensus of the expert trial watchers nor of the jury.