27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Why is stalk any more correct then the word follow as if Zimmerman was looking to attack Trayvon, as we both know the word stalk imply, he by very very simple logic would not had been on the phone trying like hell to get the police to show up.

Other then having Trayvon checked out by the police there is zero indication that Zimmerman had any ill intent toward him.

Given that follow would be the word to used not stalk.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.
Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???





David
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Why is stalk any more correct then the word follow as if Zimmerman was looking to attack Trayvon, as we both know the word stalk imply, he by very very simple logic would not had been on the phone trying like hell to get the police to show up.

Other then having Trayvon checked out by the police there is zero indication that Zimmerman had any ill intent toward him.

Given that follow would be the word to used not stalk.


Wake the hell up, Bill.

This was a black kid in the deep South. The last thing in the world that would go through his mind would be calling the cops. He probably wouldn't even do that up North...because young men are supposed to be able to "handle themselves." It is in the culture.

Not sure of what universe you live in to suggest that "there is zero indication that Zimmerman had any ill intent toward him"...especially considering the fact that he killed the young man with a gunshot wound to the chest.

"They always get away with it..." or whatever his words were also belie your statement.

Zimmerman stalked Martin...and then killed him.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.
Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David


I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?

And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.

Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:32 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Frank there is a man by the name of Chris Kyle
who killed with a rifle 255 men not a small number being teenagers.

If he would have then gotten into some disagreement with his wife
would you post how many men did his wife killed as if that matter at all?

Both Mr. Kyle and Mr. Zimmerman have one thing if common they
both killed legally one in self defense and one in defense of his nation.
Bill, I have begun to read Chris Kyle's book
AMERICAN GUN
A HISTORY OF THE U.S. IN TEN FIREARMS
.
I picked it up at the Airport.





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This was a black kid in the deep South.


LOL what century are you living in Frank as Florida voted two times for Obama for President it is not the Florida of 1860 or even 1960. Oh those voting for Obama included Zimmerman and myself for that matter.

Quote:
especially considering the fact that he killed the young man with a gunshot wound to the chest.


I said there was no evidence of him having any ill intend toward Trayvon before he found himself under Trayvon having his head pounded into the sidewalk!!!!!!

Footnote all the king men and all the FBI agents could not find one racial bone in Zimmerman body.

Quote:
"They always get away with it..." or whatever his words were also belie your statement.


That statement imply that he is not happy with the time it was taking for the police to show up and that he was of the opinion that Trayvon should indeed be check out not that he had any ill intent toward Trayvon beyond that.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 06:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon
in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.
Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David
Frank Apisa wrote:
I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?
Yes, u did not (so far as I know),
but u appeared to be so intensely offended by it
that I was un-sure on that point; (better just to ask).


Frank Apisa wrote:
And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.
OK; the truth is that I dont know the difference
between stalking and following; however, I did not mean that
in the sense of animalistic depredations.
I believe that Zimmy was trying to identify martin's location for the police.


Frank Apisa wrote:
Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.
I suspect that u already know
that in America, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.





David
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 07:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, you know you're beating a dead horse, or in this case, beating BillRM's already dead brain, so why is it so important to you now that, almost 5 months after the trial ended, that BillRM see the events the way you do? What difference does it make? Do your really care what he thinks?

What is more compelling is the fact that Zimmerman has continued to behave in a provocative and menacing manner toward a number of people since his acquittal, particularly when he is angry at them, and this has involved guns, or threats of his using a gun, against these people. It is entirely reasonable to surmise that this is what happened that night with Martin. Zimmerman was angry at Martin, who he thought was one of those "f---kig punks who always get away" and he provocatively menaced him by stalking him in the dark, rather than just remaining in his car, and when he finally confronted him he may well have made gestures of reaching toward his gun--and that would have provoked a defensive punch from Martin, and one punch is all he threw. Zimmerman had no other injuries to support "a beating" or any "head pounding" and his DNA was not found on Martin's hands. Martin threw a single punch--a punch Zimmerman provoked.

What BillRM and the others can't deal with, or accept, is that Zimmerman has continued to display the same pattern since his acquittal--he provokes and uses gun threats, not for any pretense of self-defense, but to intimidate and control the people he's angry at--his estranged wife, his father-in-law, his girlfriend--which is probably what he did to Martin to try to get him to stay put for the police, he likely gestured toward his gun, after provoking the entire encounter, but the frightened kid punched him in self defense, and may have struggled to get the gun, and Zimmerman panicked and shot him.

If people, such as BillRM, dare to acknowledge that Zimmerman has continued to display the same pattern of provocation and threatened gun use, toward others since his acquittal, it casts a shadow, a big shadow of doubt, on the notion that Martin was the aggressor that night, rather than a frightened kid reacting, appropriately, in self-defense to Zimmerman's threatening behaviors.

So, now they resort to trying to discredit all the others who have subsequently accused Zimmerman of provoking and menacing them, and they're trying to trash the characters of those people just as they did Trayon's.

They just don't want to face the truth about Zimmerman, and nothing you or I say is capable of making them do that.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 07:40 pm
@firefly,
please document in fact that Martin threw a single punch rather than two or more.
BillRM
 
  0  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 07:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Firefly is trying to sell as fact that Martin only threw a single punch?

Some punch breaking Zimmerman nose and knocking him down so Trayvon could get on top of him.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 07:50 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Firefly is trying to sell as fact that Martin only threw a single punch?

Some punch breaking Zimmerman nose and knocking him down so Trayvon could get on top of him.

she lies constantly as we know. seems to me at least one witness said that many Martin punches were thrown. do you recall? still, we dont know what happened.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
please document in fact that Martin threw a single punch rather than two or more.

I already did--Zimmerman had physical evidence of only a single blow to his face, and two tiny abrasions/scrapes on the back of his head. No evidence of any other trauma or injuries on his body, according to his own doctor, who noted only those injuries after she examined him, and she chracterized those as "extremely minor".

He had no black and blue marks, no swellings, goose-eggs, or indications of trauma etc. beyond a single punch.

He required no medical treatment at the scene, I believe he even cleaned the blood off his face himself. His injuries didn't even require band-aids. And he refused to go to a hospital for evaluation.

There was no evidence of "a beating" or a "head-pounding"--just evidence of a single blow.

The witness who saw the two scuffling may have been seeing a struggle over the gun--it was vey dark, and he did not clearly see what was happening.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:07 pm
@firefly,
Isn't it interesting how some people can include their own dreamed-up opinions as if they are actual evidence provided by the police, medics, and the media. They've been challenged on these same points over and over, and they continue to pursue their ignorance like a parrot.

They must be brain dead. There's no other excuse for their repeated lies and innuendos.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
These are the kinds of people they are supporting with their love of guns.

http://news.yahoo.com/911-calls-show-anguish-tension-conn-school-215952298.html
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon
in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.
Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David
Frank Apisa wrote:
I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?
Yes, u did not (so far as I know),
but u appeared to be so intensely offended by it
that I was un-sure on that point; (better just to ask).


Frank Apisa wrote:
And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.
OK; the truth is that I dont know the difference
between stalking and following; however, I did not mean that
in the sense of animalistic depredations.
I believe that Zimmy was trying to identify martin's location for the police.


Frank Apisa wrote:
Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.
I suspect that u already know
that in America, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David


Just one thing here I want to comment on here, David

Quote:
the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.


Let's grant that for the trial that is so.

But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.

The jury is instructed the way you say.

We have no such instructions, because we are not a jury judging Zimmerman.

Bill repeatedly has said that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

That was what I said.
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
They are trying to distract from the current legal mess Zimmerman is in by rehashing the trial over and over.

And they are trying to distract from the fact that Zimmerman has continued to repeat the same pattern of provoking and menacing others--several others-- with gun threats, since he was acquitted. And, it is not difficult to surmise that his behavior was similar when he confronted Martin. Zimmerman's patterns are consistent

Meanwhile, Zimmerman was arrested again, and he faces up to 18 years in prison if he's convicted of his current charges. So his trial is rather old news.

The Zimmerman "groupies" are just plain boring now--as you say, they are like parrots, mindlessly repeating the same stuff, over and over and over, unable to take in new information about Zimmerman, and his behavior, since his acquittal.

BillRM
 
  0  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.


I would find it amazing that if Zimmerman was the attacker that his attack was so damn weak that it did not leave a mark of any kind on Trayvon body no matter how minor.

Sorry Frank the known evidence does not support Zimmerman being the attacker.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:33 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I would find it amazing that if Zimmerman was the attacker that his attack was so damn weak that it did not leave a mark of any kind on Trayvon body no matter how minor.


Zimmerman provoked Trayvon in many ways; that Trayvon didn't have any physical injury doesn't matter. Zimmerman's own injuries were MINOR; no trauma. That's the report from the medic who examined him; and Zimmerman refused further treatment or to be taken to the hospital.

Zimmerman killed Trayvon by following Trayvon for no reason whatsoever.

Trayvon also had rights to "stand his ground." Zimmerman is the one who followed him FOR NO REASON.

firefly
 
  0  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:35 pm
@BillRM,
http://theoutloudblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/head-up-ass.jpg
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2013 08:48 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
They are trying to distract from the current legal mess
Zimmerman is in by rehashing the trial over and over.
Lemme be clear on this point (if I have left it open to doubt):
I believe that Zimmy did a nice job in defending his naborhood from burglary,
whether martin was casing the houses, or not (except that I deem reliance upon
that anemic 9mm automatic irresponsible), but Zimmy is a human being and hence,
in common with your future conduct and mine, his can be good, bad or indifferent;
he will be judged accordingly. I did not pledge life-long allegiance to him,
nor did I go into partnership with him, tho I look upon him as being
generally a good guy, not a Saint nor an Angel. If Zimmy wins the
Nobel Peace Prize or if he is condemned for something deplorable,
I get neither the credit nor the blame. I 'm only an observer.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 01:40:12