Opening statements.[W:458]

[Grim17]

The dishonesty is on you. I have exposed your dishonesty all over since the past. And you had said the same thing over and over in the past about no point debating me, yet here you are again....

No debate here now... just pointing out your dishonesty

 

[dolphinocean]

Ah hello?
You are not making any sense.
Why would Zimmerman need to scream anymore once the threat was stopped?

And btw. Multiple swelling and lumps proven.

Why would he suddenly stop? When are you ever going to be logical, Excon?

 

[Oceaura]

There isn't one piece of evidence indicating it was Martin... There was a witness at the scene who did claim it was Zimmerman screaming and the fact he changed his story 3 weeks later does not change what he claimed so positively that night and the preceeding day. Then of course there's Martins father telling a detective that it was not his son screaming, which was witnessed and overheard by another detective... Then finally, there common sense which I'm sure at least one juror must have.

Mary Cutcher said from the beginning it was T yelling and she never wavered.

Common sense says the one screaming was the one who got shot. If you are in fear for your life pulling the trigger does not make that instantly and magically disappear.

 

[dolphinocean]

You have now made it clear that your beliefs are based on your ideology, because that's the only thing that explains the abandonment of common sense.

Not so. Mine is based solely on evidence, reason and justice. Yours is purely ideological.

 

[Grim17]

1. Z follows T for no valid reason.

To keep an eye on Martin in order to inform police upon their arrival... Action that is perfectly legal and within his rights to do.

2. T runs away.

Yes, and hides instead of returning to the safety of his fathers home.

3. Z chases him between buildings.

There is no evidence of that and is pure speculation.

4. Fight and shooting.

Yes, Zimmerman was being held down and beated in spite of his cries for help.

 

[dolphinocean]

No debate here now... just pointing out your dishonesty

There is none on me you can point to. You need to look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[Excon]

1. Z follows T for no valid reason. Wrong

2. T runs away. Not out of fear.

3. Z chases him between buildings. Wrong

4. Fight and shooting. Wrong, mischaracterization. Attack and shot

:doh:doh:doh

 

[Grim17]

Not so. Mine is based solely on evidence, reason and justice. Yours is purely ideological.

There is no evidence what so ever that indicates it was Martin screaming and not Zimmerman... So again, you are caught being dishonest.

 

[Barbarian]

Why would he suddenly stop? When are you ever going to be logical, Excon?

Never mind the fact that Zimmerman own words after the shot he didn't know he missed or Martin had a weapon.

First off missed? when it was contact shot....OK George, whatever you say bud.

 

[Oceaura]

To keep an eye on Martin in order to inform police upon their arrival... Action that is perfectly legal and within his rights to do.



Yes, and hides instead of returning to the safety of his fathers home.



There is no evidence of that and is pure speculation.



Yes, Zimmerman was being held down and beated in spite of his cries for help.

No evidence Z chased him between the buildings? Okay. Have a good day.

 

[dolphinocean]

There is no evidence what so ever that indicates it was Martin screaming and not Zimmerman... So again, you are caught being dishonest.

There are plenty given. Stick your head in the same if you may.

 

[Excon]

Why would he suddenly stop? When are you ever going to be logical, Excon?

Again!

Ah hello?
You are not making any sense.
Why would Zimmerman need to scream anymore once the threat was stopped?​

Obviously it is you not being logical. Duh!

And btw. Multiple swelling and lumps proven.

 

[Grim17]

No evidence Z chased him between the buildings? Okay. Have a good day.

That is correct... The evidence indicates the confrontation took place at the "T" (that's where the keys Z was carrying in his hand were found) and there is nothing indicating he ever traveled between the buildings.

 

[dolphinocean]

Again!

Ah hello?
You are not making any sense.
Why would Zimmerman need to scream anymore once the threat was stopped?​

Obviously it is you not being logical. Duh!

And btw. Multiple swelling and lumps proven.

Why being illogican, Excon?

 

[Grim17]

There are plenty given. Stick your head in the same if you may.

Name one piece of evidence indicating it was Martin screaming, and prove you are being honest... Or blow it off and prove me right about your dishonesty. And please, don't say his family, because that's a wash and Martin's father said it wasn't him to police anyway.

 

[Excon]

Mary Cutcher said from the beginning it was T yelling and she never wavered.

Wrong.
She can not say who it was as she did not view who was screaming.
She assumed it was ™ because the voice was higher pitched.

And we know know Zimmerman had the higher pitched voice.
You got nothing on that.

Common sense says the one screaming was the one who got shot. If you are in fear for your life pulling the trigger does not make that instantly and magically disappear.

Wrong. Uncommon and illogical sense says that.
Common logical sense says it is the person getting attacked and beaten. The person on the bottom. Duh!

 

[Excon]

Why being illogican, Excon?

That is you has it has always been.

 

[longview]

If jury instructions include omitting any reference to SD they cannot use SD in any form when rendering a verdict. There is a reason jury instructions are given at the end of the trial and not the beginning.

I believe it was in the 1890's the supreme court ruled that juries are not obligated to follow the instructions,
that they could in fact judge the law. The court in later rulings stated that courts were not obligated to
inform juries of the full range of their authority, but the authority still existed.
In a finding of not guilty, A jury can consider ANYTHING they want, maybe they like the person's tie,
who knows, the verdict will stand.

 

[Grim17]

Name one piece of evidence indicating it was Martin screaming, and prove you are being honest... Or blow it off and prove me right about your dishonesty. And please, don't say his family, because that's a wash and Martin's father said it wasn't him to police anyway.

I'm still waiting dolphin dude?

 

[Grim17]

And the Dolphin dude has left the building... I rest my case.

 

[Oceaura]

I believe it was in the 1890's the supreme court ruled that juries are not obligated to follow the instructions,
that they could in fact judge the law. The court in later rulings stated that courts were not obligated to
inform juries of the full range of their authority, but the authority still existed.
In a finding of not guilty, A jury can consider ANYTHING they want, maybe they like the person's tie,
who knows, the verdict will stand.

This is where paper law meets street justice and ultimately you are correct juries are free in their deliberations because they are immune from any reaction regardless of the verdict. I was simply pointing out what the jury instructions may or may not include and jurors took an oath to be honest but since there is no punishment for being dishonest it is all void.

 

[Barbarian]

And the Dolphin dude has left the building... I rest my case.

If the dogs not going to hunt why bother?

You just put the mutt back in the kennel.

 

[AlfredENeuman]

When she is called, expect her to be uneducated, have a ghetto attitude and be hostile.

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=331215415550291968

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=339403675325849601

Wow. Just wow. You know, people assume that support for Mr. Zimmerman is based on hatred of black people already. You shouldn't confirm that for them without a fight.

By the way, didn't some other innocent women get doxxed already? Shouldn't you guys wait until she testifies to attack her mercilessly based on her race?

 

[WorldWatcher]

This issue will now be settled...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

Zimmerman's screams clearly indicate he want's the use of force by Martin to stop and since we know that Martin continued the physical attack, Zimmerman had the right according to Florida law to use lethal force.

Are we clear on the law now?

Didn't the defense spend days in a Frye Hearing attempting to prove that it was scientifically impossible to determine who was screaming?



>>>>

 

[disneydude]

Thank you for proving my point... Obviously you misread it, so I will put it all together in one coherent sentence for you:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

Thank's for the help.

LOL....I see you conveniently left off the second part I posted....figures!