• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Nothing Case Against Zimmerman

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By GEORGE NEUMAYR
July 3,2013

In televised trials, it is usually the defense attorneys who resort to hyperbole and bluster. But in George Zimmerman’s case, it is the prosecutors. They have no facts, so they are shamefully pounding on the table. “George Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to,” said prosecutor John Guy in his opening presentation. “He shot him for the worst of all reasons — because he wanted to.”

Nothing even remotely approaching proof has substantiated this claim, which looks, as each day of the trial passes, more and more like a despicable lie, probably worthy of a disbarment or two in the Seminole County prosecutor’s office.

Only in a sloppy, politically correct culture, where evidentiary standards are routinely blurred in the name of this or that liberationist goal, could this case have been brought. Media commentators in the tank for the prosecution praised Guy for his “concise” opener, failing to acknowledge why it was short: he’s got very little to work with. Guy spent most of his time fuming over what Zimmerman had said in the infamous 911 call, as if the quality of Zimmerman’s thoughts about “f—king punks” is the subject of the trial and itself worthy of punishment for decades in prison.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
The American Spectator : A Nothing Case Against Zimmerman


It appears that the prosecution was unable to substantiate that the blows to Zimmerman's face and head were capable of stunning him and causing him to fear for his life.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
By GEORGE NEUMAYR
July 3,2013

In televised trials, it is usually the defense attorneys who resort to hyperbole and bluster. But in George Zimmerman’s case, it is the prosecutors. They have no facts, so they are shamefully pounding on the table. “George Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to,” said prosecutor John Guy in his opening presentation. “He shot him for the worst of all reasons — because he wanted to.”

Nothing even remotely approaching proof has substantiated this claim, which looks, as each day of the trial passes, more and more like a despicable lie, probably worthy of a disbarment or two in the Seminole County prosecutor’s office.

Only in a sloppy, politically correct culture, where evidentiary standards are routinely blurred in the name of this or that liberationist goal, could this case have been brought. Media commentators in the tank for the prosecution praised Guy for his “concise” opener, failing to acknowledge why it was short: he’s got very little to work with. Guy spent most of his time fuming over what Zimmerman had said in the infamous 911 call, as if the quality of Zimmerman’s thoughts about “f—king punks” is the subject of the trial and itself worthy of punishment for decades in prison.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
The American Spectator : A Nothing Case Against Zimmerman


It appears that the prosecution was unable to substantiate that the blows to Zimmerman's face and head were capable of stunning him and causing him to fear for his life.




The Florida jury will decide how this trial turns out.

Not The American Spectator or Wehrwolfen
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
True, but how can you argue with that article?




I can argue with any article.

But since this case is at trial right now, I'm just going to wait and see what the jury decides.
 

Crosscheck

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
11,410
Reaction score
8,829
Location
NW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can argue with any article.

But since this case is at trial right now, I'm just going to wait and see what the jury decides.

That is a novel idea. But most of the Perry Mason wannabees here had decided this trial months ago. Now we just have to wait for this jury of six to agree with them.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
By GEORGE NEUMAYR
July 3,2013

In televised trials, it is usually the defense attorneys who resort to hyperbole and bluster. But in George Zimmerman’s case, it is the prosecutors. They have no facts, so they are shamefully pounding on the table. “George Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to,” said prosecutor John Guy in his opening presentation. “He shot him for the worst of all reasons — because he wanted to.”

Nothing even remotely approaching proof has substantiated this claim, which looks, as each day of the trial passes, more and more like a despicable lie, probably worthy of a disbarment or two in the Seminole County prosecutor’s office.

Only in a sloppy, politically correct culture, where evidentiary standards are routinely blurred in the name of this or that liberationist goal, could this case have been brought. Media commentators in the tank for the prosecution praised Guy for his “concise” opener, failing to acknowledge why it was short: he’s got very little to work with. Guy spent most of his time fuming over what Zimmerman had said in the infamous 911 call, as if the quality of Zimmerman’s thoughts about “f—king punks” is the subject of the trial and itself worthy of punishment for decades in prison.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
The American Spectator : A Nothing Case Against Zimmerman


It appears that the prosecution was unable to substantiate that the blows to Zimmerman's face and head were capable of stunning him and causing him to fear for his life.

Last night, I flipped on HLN for a moment, and across the bottom of the screen comes something like:

ZIMMERMAN BOMBSHELL!!!! Trayvon Martin DNA not found on gun!!!!

Bombshell? Really? I'm thankful the jury is sequestered.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
25,933
Reaction score
9,896
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last night, I flipped on HLN for a moment, and across the bottom of the screen comes something like:



Bombshell? Really? I'm thankful the jury is sequestered.

I watched about 15 min. of HLN coverage a couple of days ago. Turned it off. It is clear it is very one sided in its commentary.
Same thing on the radio (sat). It was HLN discussion with its panel. Some of those on the panel makes me wonder what trial they are watching.

Bottom line HLN has no creditablity with me.
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can argue with any article.

But since this case is at trial right now, I'm just going to wait and see what the jury decides.

I don't have to wait and see squat.....Z is not guilty and I'm basing myself *on almost a year ago* on this crap....the affidavit

The affidavit that, the state wrote up did absolutely nothing more than establish that Z killed M, which Z always accepted and not every killing is a crime

Today, we are seeing the fruits of that ill prepared and sorely lacking in facts affidavit where, the state doesn't come close to making the case a crime was committed, let alone second degree murder, or even that the shooting wasn't justified
 
Last edited:

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't have to wait and see squat.....Z is not guilty and I'm basing myself *on almost a year ago* on this crap....the affidavit

The affidavit that, the state wrote up did absolutely nothing more than establish that Z killed M, which Z always accepted and not every killing is a crime

Today, we are seeing the fruits of that ill prepared and sorely lacking in facts affidavit where, the state doesn't come close to making the case a crime was committed, let alone second degree murder, or even that the shooting wasn't justified




I am sure that a lot of people value your opinion.


You might call me old-fashioned,but I'm still going to wait and see what the jury decides
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
4,392
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bombshell? Really? I'm thankful the jury is sequestered.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bombshell, but it is another example of Zimmerman lying about what happened. He claimed that Martin grabbed his gun.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bombshell, but it is another example of Zimmerman lying about what happened. He claimed that Martin grabbed his gun.

If I grab someone's anything, there's absolutely no assurance I will leave DNA behind, Napoleon. Absolutely none. Without bodily fluids (blood, semen, saliva, vaginal fluid), hair, and I'm sure some other body thingies, DNA can be very difficult to come by. There is "touch DNA." But touch DNA comes from lower rather than surface skin cells...not the cells we shed.

In addition, there is absolutely no reason to assume that any of Martin's DNA that was on the gun wasn't compromised . . . when Zimmerman held it . . . when it got wet . . . etc.

Maybe taken "in total" -- I just don't know. But it's hardly a bombshell.
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
22,923
Reaction score
20,315
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If I grab someone's anything, there's absolutely no assurance I will leave DNA behind, Napoleon. Absolutely none. Without bodily fluids (blood, semen, saliva, vaginal fluid), hair, and I'm sure some other body thingies, DNA can be very difficult to come by. There is "touch DNA." But touch DNA comes from lower rather than surface skin cells...not the cells we shed.

In addition, there is absolutely no reason to assume that any of Martin's DNA that was on the gun wasn't compromised . . . when Zimmerman held it . . . when it got wet . . . etc.

Maybe taken "in total" -- I just don't know. But it's hardly a bombshell.

I agree, not a bombshell, and I agree with it being possibly relevant when taken in total. I would have to wonder though - just touching the gun for a moment, seems like not a great likelihood of transference of DNA, but I have to wonder if the transference of DNA is a lot more probable if that person had just been delivering MMA style punches (what was said, a dozen)and also slamming someones head down into pavement - if that might "free up" more cells to me transferred.

Nonetheless, it clearly was not bombshell or even somewhat important.

Still don't think Murder 2, but have to wonder about manslaughter.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,109
Reaction score
8,867
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
He isn't being tried for manslaughter.
There is a great possibility manslaughter may come in
as a jury instruction. It is a called a lesser included offense.
It doesn't have to, but if requested (which it most likely will be requested), it will be a possible consideration for the jury.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,109
Reaction score
8,867
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree, not a bombshell, and I agree with it being possibly relevant when taken in total. I would have to wonder though - just touching the gun for a moment, seems like not a great likelihood of transference of DNA, but I have to wonder if the transference of DNA is a lot more probable if that person had just been delivering MMA style punches (what was said, a dozen)and also slamming someones head down into pavement - if that might "free up" more cells to me transferred.

Nonetheless, it clearly was not bombshell or even somewhat important.

Still don't think Murder 2, but have to wonder about manslaughter.

No evidence for a manslaughter conviction....

Hell, not even for a parking violation

You have nothing
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
22,923
Reaction score
20,315
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I should say you are lying like you say Zimmerman is, just to make the point that someone being mistaken is not lying.

But to your reply.
Wrong!
It does not say he grabbed it.

Also showing that you do not know the evidence.

How can one be mistaken about having his head SLAMMED against the concrete multiple times?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,109
Reaction score
8,867
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How can one be mistaken about having his head SLAMMED against the concrete multiple times?
WTF?

What does your absurd question have to do with your being wrong?
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
22,923
Reaction score
20,315
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I should say you are lying like you say Zimmerman is, just to make the point that someone being mistaken is not lying.

But to your reply.
Wrong!
It does not say he grabbed it.

Also showing that you do not know the evidence.

Ahhh, reached for....but he told his best friend a little more than that.

Depending if the jury believes his best friend.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,109
Reaction score
8,867
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Ahhh, reached for....but he told his best friend a little more than that.

Depending if the jury believes his best friend.
:doh
His friend said that he thought he said that, but could be mistaken.


And yes, you were wrong. "Reached for", is not "grabbed".
 
Top Bottom