The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What evidence?

That presented at trial. Here is the link.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

When they arrived, they found Zimmerman bleeding from the nose and head.

Could these have been,

Oh ****, what the **** have I done, better make myself look beat up injuries?

Quote:

He was treated at the scene but refused to go to the hospital.

Possibly because medical experts could determine that the injuries were self-inflicted.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

David says:

DAVID wrote:

Tom, do u dispute
that Orthodox American conservatives (like Barry Goldwater and like me)
support the presumption of innocence ?

MontereyJack wrote:

You only support the presumption of innocence for Zimmerman.

I accepted Zimmy 's explanation of events.
It seems plausible to me, and to the local police.
I find it hard to believe that anyone 'd wanna commit a felony
in front of approaching police, thereby jeopardizing years of his life, for no reason.
I have not changed my mind about that.

MontereyJack wrote:

From the first you have supported the presumption of guilt for Trayvon.
You're hugely biased in who you choose to presume innocent.
So, no, you don't support presumption of innocence.

That is a non-sequitur.
The presumption in question belongs to defendant,
which Travon is not. I 'm pretty sure that u r racially motivated, like sharpton.

David

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Even if on the odd chance he did get a concussion, the medical examiner said his injuries were not life threatening.

1) If you read the transcript (starting here, then continuing here and here), you will find that the medical examiner testified only about external injuries to the head. Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked her about internal injuries.

2) For the defense to prevail, the internal injuries to the head needn't have actually been life threatening. They only need to have brought Zimmerman close enough to losing consciousness to reasonably fear for his life.

2 Replies

@engineer,

What was presented in trial are so weak as to be almost worthless based on what the defense has done. They, more or less, controlled the whole proceedings of this trial to their advantage.

It's almost impossible to prove "I thought I was going to get killed."

The stand your ground law in Florida is a lousy law. The perpetrator always has an out; I was afraid for my life. BANG!

0 Replies

The Broward County (Florida) Sheriff's Office urges us not to riot when the verdict is announced

0 Replies

David says:

Quote:

@MontereyJack,

David says:

DAVID wrote:
Tom, do u dispute
that Orthodox American conservatives (like Barry Goldwater and like me)
support the presumption of innocence ?

MontereyJack wrote:
You only support the presumption of innocence for Zimmerman.

David:I accepted Zimmy 's explanation of events.
It seems plausible to me, and to the local police.
I find it hard to believe that anyone 'd wanna commit a felony
in front of approaching police, thereby jeopardizing years of his life, for no reason.
I have not changed my mind about that.

MontereyJack wrote:
From the first you have supported the presumption of guilt for Trayvon.
You're hugely biased in who you choose to presume innocent.
So, no, you don't support presumption of innocence.

David:That is a non-sequitur.
The presumption in question belongs to defendant,
which Travon is not. I 'm pretty sure that u r racially motivated, like sharpton.

And I find Zimmerman not at all compelling. I find it hard to believe that a kid who runs away from confrontation and is only trying to get back home and has done nothing is going to suddenly turn homicidal, but find it all too likely that someone with vigilante fantasies who is rushing to face someone he's convinced is guilty and is getting away, and is packing a gun, is all too ready to force a confrontation and feels he's invincible because he's armed. I haven't changed my mind either.

Further, the only reason Trayvon isn't on trial as well is because Zimmerman killed him. In which case Trayvon would be presumed innocent too. Simply because Zimmerman killed Trayvon does not make Trayvon guilty. In fact there is no debate that Zimmerman shot and killed him. And that prima facie means there is suspiciion of crime, committed by Zimmerman. Presume Zimmerman innocent and logically you have to presume Trayvon innocent as well. Logic has never been David's strong suit.

David, I think you never even considered the possibilithy that Trayvon might be innocent, but immediately deemed him guilty, and are racially motivated much like David Duke, the Louisiana ex-politician and KuKlux Klan leader. Accuse me, and I'll accuse you right back.

2 Replies

If I recall correctly, the ME said Zimmerman's injuries were also consistent with simply rolling around on the sidewalk, rather than actual blows being struck or a head intentionally pounded on the sidewalk. So if Zimmerman had simply grabbed Trayvon and they fell, and didn't break loose, that could also have caused Zimmerman's minor injuries.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Trayvon is guilty of walking back to his father's place when Zimmerman was there!

I hope the jury takes this simple idea into consideration; it's not a crime to walk in your parent's home's neighborhood. Until now.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

This is where you enter unreasonable doubt. I entered unreasonable doubt when the discussion turned from what one expects to see to some woo-woo idea of what might possibly happen in theory.

That is, of course, your prerogative, no matter how far-fetched your concept of "woo-woo" might be.

But let me inquire about your concept of reasonable doubt. By your standards, when has a defender raised a reasonable doubt? And when has a prosecutor proved his hypothesis, that the defendant is guilty of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt?

DrewDad wrote:

I know people who have suffered concussions, and they didn't pull out guns and start shooting people.

Did they suffer their concussions in fights with people that they believed were "up to no good" and "on drugs or something"?

1 Reply

The blonde witness, Olivia, shud make Zimmy look good.
She testified to 2 young blacks breaking into her home.
The 911 operator advised her to grab up whatever weapon
that she had. Weirdly, all she had was "a rusty pair of scissors" (no guns).
Now, she knows better.
She was in a state of terror, hiding behind her scissors, with her baby.

Zimmy offered her a lot of emotional support.
After this misadventure, he patrolled their naborhood,
like the proverbial Knight on a White Horse.

This shud be well received by the all-female jury. We 'll see.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Zimmy offered her a lot of emotional support.
After this misadventure, he patrolled their naborhood,
like the proverbial Knight on a White Horse.

What is the name of that group, quite famous, who long ago set up street patrols? I believe the founders first name was Curtis, or maybe that was his surname. Street Angels???

Anyway they went out unarmed and they made a big difference. I wonder how many people this group has had to kill over the many years they were[??] have been doing [??]this?

EDIT: Found it - The Guardian Angels founded by Curtis Sliwa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels

Big group, world wide, lots of chapters and members. Have they ever killed anyone? My guess is no and I say this because it would have been big time media news. But I can't say for sure.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Guardian Angels
Keeping it safe

34 years of keeping vulnerable individuals and communities safe!

http://www.guardianangels.org/

0 Replies

@JTT,

Difference is safety in numbers. Guardian Angels do not patrol alone but as a group. You don't always have that same sort of community in the suburbs as you do in the urban areas. You won't find GA's roaming the streets of Mundelein IL, but you will find them on the streets of Chicago IL.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

That even makes it a greater wonder because these folks patrol the roughest areas and again, my bet is that in their, what? 40 year history they have never killed anyone.

I distinctly remember you saying that I was going onto ignore, B. As long as I'm not would you like to discuss the war crime that is Afghanistan? Or any other historical period of the US.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

David says:

Quote:

@MontereyJack,

David says:

DAVID wrote:
Tom, do u dispute
that Orthodox American conservatives (like Barry Goldwater and like me)
support the presumption of innocence ?

MontereyJack wrote:
You only support the presumption of innocence for Zimmerman.

David:I accepted Zimmy 's explanation of events.
It seems plausible to me, and to the local police.
I find it hard to believe that anyone 'd wanna commit a felony
in front of approaching police, thereby jeopardizing years of his life, for no reason.
I have not changed my mind about that.

MontereyJack wrote:
From the first you have supported the presumption of guilt for Trayvon.
You're hugely biased in who you choose to presume innocent.
So, no, you don't support presumption of innocence.

David:That is a non-sequitur.
The presumption in question belongs to defendant,
which Travon is not. I 'm pretty sure that u r racially motivated, like sharpton.

MontereyJack wrote:

And I find Zimmerman not at all compelling.

That 's OK, inasmuch as he need prove nothing.

MontereyJack wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a kid who runs away from confrontation

and then runs back into it

MontereyJack wrote:

and is only [???] trying to get back home

not "only"; he is also beating Zimmy 's head on the cement

MontereyJack wrote:

and has done nothing is going to suddenly turn homicidal,

He seems to have delusions
that there is anything rong with someone following him.

MontereyJack wrote:

but find it all too likely that someone with vigilante fantasies who is rushing to face
someone he's convinced is guilty and is getting away,

He was suspected of casing houses in the area; not guilty YET.
Its a noble idea to harass burglars; it helps us to keep our stuff.
I wonder if the girls on the jury have ever been burgled.

MontereyJack wrote:

and is packing a gun,

Everyone shud,
the same as packing a Bible, his wallet, or the Wall Street Journal.
Olivia shud have; maybe she does now.

MontereyJack wrote:

is all too ready to force a confrontation

That 's perfectly proper, lawful, decent & honorable.

MontereyJack wrote:

and feels he's invincible because he's armed.

O, really?? So, according to u,
Zimmy knew whether the suspect was armed or not???
How did he acquire this information, Jack??
What is the evidence upon which u rely??

MontereyJack wrote:

I haven't changed my mind either.

Further, the only reason Trayvon isn't on trial as well is because Zimmerman killed him.

U expected 2 defendants???

MontereyJack wrote:

In which case Trayvon would be presumed innocent too.

If he were on trial, yes.

MontereyJack wrote:

Simply because Zimmerman killed Trayvon does not make Trayvon guilty.

Zimmy 's explanation of the sequence of events
shows Zimmy 's innocence.
Travon 's choice to slam Zimmy 's head repeatedly on the cement
made him both guilty and legitimately dead.
I feel safer for that fact.

MontereyJack wrote:

In fact there is no debate that Zimmerman shot and killed him.

Yes.

MontereyJack wrote:

And that prima facie means there is suspiciion of crime, committed by Zimmerman.

I suspect u of killing both Kennedys
and of being in on the plot to drown Mary Jo,
over a period of several hours; so there!
How does my suspicion affect your rights??

MontereyJack wrote:

Presume Zimmerman innocent

I did that.

MontereyJack wrote:

and logically you have to presume Trayvon innocent as well.

not unless u put him on trial

MontereyJack wrote:

Logic has never been David's strong suit.

David, I think you never even considered the possibilithy that Trayvon might be innocent,
but immediately deemed him guilty,

I accepted the witness accounts (including Zimmy 's)
of his pounding Zimmy 's head on the cement. The wounds show it.
Its ez to see.

U 'd be on the other side (with Sharpton, et al),
if Zimmy were a black and if Travon were a white.

MontereyJack wrote:

and are racially motivated much like David Duke,
the Louisiana ex-politician and KuKlux Klan leader.
Accuse me, and I'll accuse you right back.

OK, but I 'll defend the right of self defense, anyway.

I notice that u fully IGNORE the inconvenient fact
that Zimmy knew that police were approaching
because he called them n he 'd be loathe to commit felonies in front of them.

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

And his body could have been taken over by aliens and they made him pull the trigger....

The Mexicans ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Why do you, supposed once a lawyer, come across as a guy with all the smarts of a H20man, Sig?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Perhaps some time u will indicate the reason
that the quest for liberty fell from grace, in your eyes.

A tempting question, to be sure, but I'm afraid I must resist. It's far off-topic for this thread.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Perhaps some time u will indicate the reason
that the quest for liberty fell from grace, in your eyes.

Thomas wrote:

A tempting question, to be sure, but I'm afraid I must resist.
It's far off-topic for this thread.

It is; maybe some day. U have my confidence.

David

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know