80% believe George Zimmerman is NOT guilty

[Furiounova]

That's not how it works. Demonstrating that GZ lied is not the same as proving beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ's action fulfilled the conditions of m2.
the prosecution has to show that it was impossible for any set of circumstances to exist where GZ is not guilty of m2.

I think that GZ has lied about what happened that night. I don't think everything he said was a lie. But I can't distinguish the truth from lies I do not have the info to check for myself. So, if I were a juror, I would treat all of GZ account as suspect and rely on the evidence other than GZ account.

But there's still a positive duty on the prosecution to show that there's no reasonable explanation wherein GZ did not commit murder in the second degree.

That is a high bar, but it's serious charge and should be seriously proven before someone faces the serious consequences for it. Seriously...

Part of the positive will be an inherent result of proving he lied about the entire sequence of events. It's not like he gave a consistent statement on events between the phone call and beginning of fight, then gave inconsistent statements between the fight and gunshot.

His recorded profiling of TM as a criminal proves he did not merely "suspect" TM was up to no good. He had convicted TM as a criminal before he even got out of his truck. This helps prove his mindset going into the fight itself. You are correct prosecution has the positive burden and it will focus on the moment he pulled the trigger. Does all of the evidence show he pulled it by mistake? A reasonable fear? Or was it out of anger? I think the prosecution has enough to prove it was out of anger and partially because there is no evidence he tried to use less than deadly force before pulling the trigger.

This is a case where there is no smoking gun but rather an aggregate and the fact GZ couldn't give one consistent element between his 1st statement and his recorded call, along with showing absolutely no remorse at any point, helps show depravity because there is an agenda to change everything that happened.

I also think they will play some of the jailhouse calls including his hoodie joke and how excited he sounds with the new found money. His Hannity interview also helps show he still couldn't give a consistent account and even introduced new falsehoods.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Part of the positive will be an inherent result of proving he lied about the entire sequence of events.

No, it's not part of it.
They are two separate things.
Showing that GZ lied only removes GZ story from the pile of reliable evidence.

I think the prosecution has enough to prove it was out of anger and partially because there is no evidence he tried to use less than deadly force before pulling the trigger.

The prosecution has to show that there is no reasonable explanation which shows GZ was acting in self defense.
That's it.

Hypothetically, they wouldn't even have to provide an alternative version of events if they could successfully show that there is no case where GZ could have been acting in self-defense without an alternative version of events.

 

[Furiounova]

No, it's not part of it.
They are two separate things.
Showing that GZ lied only removes GZ story from the pile of reliable evidence.
The prosecution has to show that there is no reasonable explanation which shows GZ was acting in self defense.
That's it.

Hypothetically, they wouldn't even have to provide an alternative version of events if they could successfully show that there is no case where GZ could have been acting in self-defense without an alternative version of events.

When I say "part of it" I am saying in order to get the jury to believe the depraved mind, the prosecution has to show GZ lied about what happened. once that is accomplished the jury is then available to the depraved mind requirement. Showing he lied doesn't automatically show a depraved mind but it is necessary. They are not mutually exclusive elements as one relies on the other.

I don't think they will try to prove an alternative set of events. They may toss out a couple of possibilities but it would be a distraction from what they can prove.

 

[Masada]

In the very least Manslaughter. It will be M2 if the prosecution can convince all jurors he lied about almost everything that happened. With M2 having lighter standards in Florida versus many other States it seems people are not understanding prosecution does not need to prove as much as other places.

It's pretty clear he chased someone with a gun. Someone who did nothing but run away from the stranger pursuing him. That will be one of the points showing a depraved mind.

The prosecution maintains the burden of proof. Get that? PROOF. They must PROVE he committed murder, with evidence. You folks keep forgetting that little bit of the law.

Also, yes, Zimmerman did chase after him with a gun. But the chase ceased, which can be proven with evidence. And you have no way of PROVING that Martin simply "ran away". However, it's easier to PROVE, with evidence, that Martin attacked Zimmerman, which will support self-defense, not a depraved mind.

I know these facts are troublesome to your case, and they are personally troublesome to you, but they are the facts. Evidence suggests that Martin initiated a fight with Zimmerman, knocking Z to his back. He has physical evidence he was assaulted, and the manner of his wounds suggest he was not the aggressor of the physical altercation. Witnesses also place Zimmerman in a defensive position (on his back, crying out for help). The police report says that Zimmerman's back was wet, and had grass on it, suggesting he was in the defensive position. Police report also says that Z had lacerations to the back of his head, and a bloody nose. Two facts that support Z's story that Martin was on top of him, punching him, and slamming his head into the ground. These facts alone could get him off via self-defense. It all comes down to how the defense presents the evidence to the jury, if it even goes to a jury, which I'm sure it will.

In law, you cannot assume because a person lied about one thing, that they are lying about everything. That's not law. Lies must be exposed and PROVEN to be lies, using evidence. The reason he will not receive M2 is because the prosecution cannot DISPROVE Zimmerman's claims about what happened that night. They do not have the evidence to prove that Martin didn't initiate the fight. They do not have the evidence to prove Martin didn't reach for Z's gun. They do not have the evidence to prove Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him not to.

Problem for the prosecution, is they simply don't have EVIDENCE to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their requirement.

 

[sharon]

Remember that George said Trayvon "skipped away".. as if he was unafraid.

The prosecution maintains the burden of proof. Get that? PROOF. They must PROVE he committed murder, with evidence. You folks keep forgetting that little bit of the law.

Also, yes, Zimmerman did chase after him with a gun. But the chase ceased, which can be proven with evidence. And you have no way of PROVING that Martin simply "ran away". However, it's easier to PROVE, with evidence, that Martin attacked Zimmerman, which will support self-defense, not a depraved mind.

I know these facts are troublesome to your case, and they are personally troublesome to you, but they are the facts. Evidence suggests that Martin initiated a fight with Zimmerman, knocking Z to his back. He has physical evidence he was assaulted, and the manner of his wounds suggest he was not the aggressor of the physical altercation. Witnesses also place Zimmerman in a defensive position (on his back, crying out for help). The police report says that Zimmerman's back was wet, and had grass on it, suggesting he was in the defensive position. Police report also says that Z had lacerations to the back of his head, and a bloody nose. Two facts that support Z's story that Martin was on top of him, punching him, and slamming his head into the ground. These facts alone could get him off via self-defense. It all comes down to how the defense presents the evidence to the jury, if it even goes to a jury, which I'm sure it will.

In law, you cannot assume because a person lied about one thing, that they are lying about everything. That's not law. Lies must be exposed and PROVEN to be lies, using evidence. The reason he will not receive M2 is because the prosecution cannot DISPROVE Zimmerman's claims about what happened that night. They do not have the evidence to prove that Martin didn't initiate the fight. They do not have the evidence to prove Martin didn't reach for Z's gun. They do not have the evidence to prove Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him not to.

Problem for the prosecution, is they simply don't have EVIDENCE to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their requirement.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

In law, you cannot assume because a person lied about one thing, that they are lying about everything. That's not law. Lies must be exposed and PROVEN to be lies, using evidence.

I have actually consulted two different attorneys who both said that a juror makes up his own mind about what has been presented. They're free to dismiss all of what GZ says if they think he is lying. Or they can choose to accept some of what he says and not other parts. but the info that I got was that it's up to the juror to decide.
From what I can tell that does mean that you CAN assume because a person lied about one thing, that they are lying about everything if you think that's the right thing to do as a juror.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

....the manner of his wounds suggest he was not the aggressor of the physical altercation.

I am not sure how the wounds can tell us who started the fight. So please explain if you can.

How can I distinguish a black eye which was received by an aggressor from a black eye which was received by someone who was not an aggressor?


Do aggressors get certain kinds of wounds that GZ lacks?
Or is it that people who are not aggressors are the only people who get certain kinds of wounds and GZ has those?

 

[teamosil]

Found an online poll saying 81% think he will not be convicted of M2 and found it curiously high until I began reading the comments. The first one says:

"Zimmerman was defending himself against a juvenal delinquent that was twice his size and in excellent physical condition."

Idiot jackasses making such a blatantly false claim have no valid opinion. The rest are pretty racist.

Poll Results: Will George Zimmerman be found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin? - Washington Times

An online poll of WASHINGTON TIMES readers?!?! Seriously dude, you just need to apologize and move on.

 

[Thunder]

I am not sure how the wounds can tell us who started the fight. So please explain if you can.

How can I distinguish a black eye which was received by an aggressor from a black eye which was received by someone who was not an aggressor?


Do aggressors get certain kinds of wounds that GZ lacks?
Or is it that people who are not aggressors are the only people who get certain kinds of wounds and GZ has those?

no, GZ's injuries do not prove one way or the other who started the altercation.

they only prove that GZ got his ass kicked, and he probably deserved it.

 

[Furiounova]

An online poll of WASHINGTON TIMES readers?!?! Seriously dude, you just need to apologize and move on.

Did you somehow miss the sarcasm?

 

[Furiounova]

The prosecution maintains the burden of proof. Get that? PROOF. They must PROVE he committed murder, with evidence. You folks keep forgetting that little bit of the law.

Also, yes, Zimmerman did chase after him with a gun. But the chase ceased, which can be proven with evidence. And you have no way of PROVING that Martin simply "ran away". However, it's easier to PROVE, with evidence, that Martin attacked Zimmerman, which will support self-defense, not a depraved mind.

I know these facts are troublesome to your case, and they are personally troublesome to you, but they are the facts. Evidence suggests that Martin initiated a fight with Zimmerman, knocking Z to his back. He has physical evidence he was assaulted, and the manner of his wounds suggest he was not the aggressor of the physical altercation. Witnesses also place Zimmerman in a defensive position (on his back, crying out for help). The police report says that Zimmerman's back was wet, and had grass on it, suggesting he was in the defensive position. Police report also says that Z had lacerations to the back of his head, and a bloody nose. Two facts that support Z's story that Martin was on top of him, punching him, and slamming his head into the ground. These facts alone could get him off via self-defense. It all comes down to how the defense presents the evidence to the jury, if it even goes to a jury, which I'm sure it will.

In law, you cannot assume because a person lied about one thing, that they are lying about everything. That's not law. Lies must be exposed and PROVEN to be lies, using evidence. The reason he will not receive M2 is because the prosecution cannot DISPROVE Zimmerman's claims about what happened that night. They do not have the evidence to prove that Martin didn't initiate the fight. They do not have the evidence to prove Martin didn't reach for Z's gun. They do not have the evidence to prove Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher told him not to.

Problem for the prosecution, is they simply don't have EVIDENCE to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their requirement.

Honestly, I stopped reading about the fourth line in. I'm betting it was not worth the time to read the rest because you clearly do not know the facts of this case. The proof? what is the evidence GZ stopped pursuing him?

 

[sharon]

Did you somehow miss the sarcasm?

Time for people to donate to Aurora Victims Funds instead of to George Zimmerman.

 

[Furiounova]

I am not sure how the wounds can tell us who started the fight. So please explain if you can.

How can I distinguish a black eye which was received by an aggressor from a black eye which was received by someone who was not an aggressor?


Do aggressors get certain kinds of wounds that GZ lacks?
Or is it that people who are not aggressors are the only people who get certain kinds of wounds and GZ has those?

I've posted this for GZ supporters before who claim what GZ looked like shows who started the fight but they ignored it:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[Furiounova]

Time for people to donate to Aurora Victims Funds instead of to George Zimmerman.

FN likes this post

 

[Kreton]

Time for people to donate to Aurora Victims Funds instead of to George Zimmerman.

Yea we wouldnt want a poor person being able to put together a decent defense.

 

[sharon]

Yea we wouldnt want a poor person being able to put together a decent defense.

With the funds donated, Zimmerman and his wife spent $6,500 on Internet and phone bills, new cell phones for $300 each, paid off a year-long Verizon contract in full, installed a telephone landline for $2,500, spent $1,300 on a two-year AT&T Wi-Fi contract and paid off at least $7,000 in credit card bills.

As reported by the Miami Herald:


They used $4,378 on automotive expenses, making payments on two car loans while renting another for more than $1,500. Gas: $800.

Zimmerman paid off a $3,000 loan to his parents, paid $5,000 for bond, spent $800 at the jail commissary and $600 on jailhouse calling cards. The couple spent about $1,300 on food and $400 on utilities and $1,900 on rent.

Read more: George Zimmerman And His Wife Shellie Spent $36K In 18 Days (DETAILS) | Global Grind

 

[Kreton]

With the funds donated, Zimmerman and his wife spent $6,500 on Internet and phone bills, new cell phones for $300 each, paid off a year-long Verizon contract in full, installed a telephone landline for $2,500, spent $1,300 on a two-year AT&T Wi-Fi contract and paid off at least $7,000 in credit card bills.

As reported by the Miami Herald:


They used $4,378 on automotive expenses, making payments on two car loans while renting another for more than $1,500. Gas: $800.

Zimmerman paid off a $3,000 loan to his parents, paid $5,000 for bond, spent $800 at the jail commissary and $600 on jailhouse calling cards. The couple spent about $1,300 on food and $400 on utilities and $1,900 on rent.

Read more: George Zimmerman And His Wife Shellie Spent $36K In 18 Days (DETAILS) | Global Grind

Yea I know it is frustrating for you to see a poor person pay their bills. They need to stay behind and continue to be repressed so that the rich fat cats that are persecuting this poor man can continue to feel superior.

 

[sharon]

Yea I know it is frustrating for you to see a poor person pay their bills. They need to stay behind and continue to be repressed so that the rich fat cats that are persecuting this poor man can continue to feel superior.

You sound like George .... always blaming someone else. Go back to school, start your own business.

 

[Kreton]

You sound like George .... always blaming someone else. Go back to school, start your own business.

Out of curiosity, how much education have I received and what do I do for a living? Also who is Zimmerman blaming? How is Zimmerman "blaming" others for his bills being paid?

 

[sharon]

Out of curiosity, how much education have I received and what do I do for a living? Also who is Zimmerman blaming? How is Zimmerman "blaming" others for his bills being paid?

Are you stoned? You were just RAVING about fat cats.

 

[joko104]

Yea I know it is frustrating for you to see a poor person pay their bills. They need to stay behind and continue to be repressed so that the rich fat cats that are persecuting this poor man can continue to feel superior.

Sharon has often bragged on the forum that she is super rich with millions of dollars. Yes, she hates poor and blue collar people. Often declares her superiority for it too. She makes no secret of it.

 

[Kreton]

Sharon has often bragged on the forum that she is super rich with millions of dollars. Yes, she hates poor and blue collar people. Often declares her superiority for it too. She makes no secret of it.

She also fails to either identify when a question is addressed to her or is diliberately avoiding answering it because she knows she is not capable.

 

[Kreton]

Sharon has often bragged on the forum that she is super rich with millions of dollars. Yes, she hates poor and blue collar people. Often declares her superiority for it too. She makes no secret of it.

Oh and yea i have seen sharon and her bragging. She is also a martial arts expert and many other things.

 

[joko104]

You sound like George .... always blaming someone else. Go back to school, start your own business.

^ That is easily interpreted by self-declared super rich Sharon lamo) as "I hate poor people. It's their own fault. Go to school. Working nights and weekends as a janior and and work you way up the capitialism own-your-own-business because all workers and employees are stupid nobodies."

The bigotries and arrogances of Sharon - no reason to believe anything she posts about herself - continue to grow.

One aspect I find about GZ that tends to have my leaning his way is that he is NOT like Sharon - nor like Sharon claims to be economically.

George Zimmerman is the ordinary person, the "salt of the earth" - with all the political and super rich powers that be trying to destroy him for their own profits.

Sharon also boasted that she was born into an oil-rich family - then brags of her superiority from it. Disgusting.

I was born into total destitution, orphan, and a very sadistic culture. I could of my way out and I could boast of what I have now, but there would be no reason for anyone to believe it and only a very ignorant, crude person boasts of superiority for wealth on a forum.

GZ did pursue education. He went to a police academic.

You are wrong. You are not superior to other people, it is STUPID to claim everyone can have their own business, and all of life isn't about accumulating wealth as you often declare, nor the measure of a person's wealth.

You hate GZ because he's poor. That he is below you, sub-human compared to you. You make that very clear over and over again.

 

[joko104]

Oh and yea i have seen sharon and her bragging. She is also a martial arts expert and many other things.

Traveling the world alone at age 12 with millions of dollars. PhD. Creator of prescription drugs and world famous inventor. Oil czar. Top management of Fortune 500 company. Mega rich company owner. And assailant and kidnapper of children?

:roll:

I suppose a person can be whoever they want behind an anonymous ID on a forum, huh?

WHY this is relevant to the topic is the continual personal condemnations of GZ in ways totally irrelevant to the case or incident, for which that member finds ways to use it to constantly expand her own declared greatness by comparison. Like some self-declared nobililty by birthrights sneering "let the eat cake."