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.
The Florida jury will decide how this trial turns out.
Not The American Spectator or Wehrwolfen
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.
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.
ZIMMERMAN BOMBSHELL!!!! Trayvon Martin DNA not found on gun!!!!
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 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
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.
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.
Please show us where he sated this.He claimed that Martin grabbed his gun.
Still don't think Murder 2, but have to wonder about manslaughter.
There is a great possibility manslaughter may come inHe isn't being tried for manslaughter.
Please show us where he sated this.
Please show us where he sated this.He claimed that Martin grabbed his gun.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/21/written_statement_0226.pdf
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.
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.
WTF?How can one be mistaken about having his head SLAMMED against the concrete multiple times?
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.
:dohAhhh, reached for....but he told his best friend a little more than that.
Depending if the jury believes his best friend.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?