Opening statements.[W:458]

[tashatexas77048]

More to the point Dolphin, if the defense didn't agree with your interpretation of the law and if the criminal law student George Zimmerman didn't agree with your interpretation of the law then we would not be being asked to both hear Zimmerman say he is following Martin but believe that doesn't mean what we think it means at the same time. The silly word games played by the defendant during the Hannity interview magnify this times 100.

 

[sharon]

show us your sources to be able to assert zimmerman's history
i look forward to seeing them
but realize it won't happen

that stupid post is just the result of making up more **** because your side's case is falling apart

George told his friends that he mother beat them ("she could punch like a man") and that his father didn't defend the kids.. Of course George may be lying..

In all his legal difficulties he has claimed it was always someone else's fault..They assaulted him or didn't identify themselves.

You want a year's worth of reading witness accounts summed up for you here?

Why don't you go to GZlegalcase.com and start reading and listening to the interviews??

 

[justabubba]

George told his friends that he mother beat them ("she could punch like a man") and that his father didn't defend the kids.. Of course George may be lying..

In all his legal difficulties he has claimed it was always someone else's fault..They assaulted him or didn't identify themselves.

You want a year's worth of reading witness accounts summed up for you here?

Why don't you go to GZlegalcase.com and start reading and listening to the interviews??

just as predicted
you would not/could not defend your statements with credible sources

 

[sharon]

just as predicted
you would not/could not defend your statements with credible sources

GZlegalcase is a credible source........

 

[sharon]

More to the point Dolphin, if the defense didn't agree with your interpretation of the law and if the criminal law student George Zimmerman didn't agree with your interpretation of the law then we would not be being asked to both hear Zimmerman say he is following Martin but believe that doesn't mean what we think it means at the same time. The silly word games played by the defendant during the Hannity interview magnify this times 100.

George does parse everything.. I suppose he has always gotten away with it. As in I wasn't following.. I was walking in the same direction.

The Hannity interview was a disaster.. and George thought Hannity was on his side.. All that smirking and grinning.. His lack of remorse. Blaming God..What a dumb cluck.

 

[justabubba]

GZlegalcase is a credible source........

then give us the cites from that source to defend your statements
otherwise your response is like telling us that google is a good source

 

[sharon]

then give us the cites from that source to defend your statements
otherwise your response is like telling us that google is a good source

GZlegal is not like google ... All the evidence and discovery is neatly catalogued.. I think maybe you are just lazy.. I am not going to argue with someone who has no interest in the evidence.

 

[justabubba]

GZlegal is not like google ... All the evidence and discovery is neatly catalogued.. I think maybe you are just lazy.. I am not going to argue with someone who has no interest in the evidence.

so, you are saying i am the lazy one for not supplying the cites to defend your assertions
more nonsense. but no longer surprised by it

 

[dolphinocean]

Completely devoid of logic, reason and oblivious to and ignorant of Florida's self-defense laws and based purely on an emotional, knee-jerk reaction horse ****

Get over it....you know nothing about case law

good riddance

Really?


This was what Grim said that I responded to:

the fact that Zimmerman did not have to suffer grave injuries, just be in fear of sustaining them to justify the use of lethal force?

This was what I said:

Or maybe you are unaware that when you followed someone walking in the rain at night on public street and concrete path in which he had every right to be and then you got out of your car with obscenity under your breath and armed with a lethal weapon to give chase after someone who was trying to run away from you, you can't just claim you are in fear of sustaining grave injuries without showing reasonable proof that you were brutally attacked without cause to justify killing an unarmed pedestrian, a teenaer who was doing nothing wrong in this case.


Bottom line is, if you go looking for trouble armed with a lethal weapon you can't cry foul without proving your claim with actual physical evidence of self-defense. So, your moral princicple is seriously out of whack. And I thought you wasn't going to debate me?

Nothing I said in your quote of my previous post was "an emotional, knee-jerk reaction horse ****"


But, for your education, the spirit of the law should apply to Trayvon who had every right to walk at night on the street in the rain without being followed and chased by a paranoid to the point of fearing for his life and therefore "did not have to suffer grave injuries, just be in fear of sustaining them to justify the use of lethal force."

You people just like to turn everything upside down in order to defend zimmerman at all cost.

 

[ric27]

Really?


This was what Grim said that I responded to:





This was what I said:





Nothing I said in your quote of my previous post was "an emotional, knee-jerk reaction horse ****"


But, for your education, the spirit of the law should apply to Trayvon who had every right to walk at night on the street in the rain without being followed and chased by a paranoid to the point of fearing for his life and therefore "did not have to suffer grave injuries, just be in fear of sustaining them to justify the use of lethal force."

You people just like to turn everything upside down in order to defend zimmerman at all cost.

Yeah

I also have the law on my side

to turn everything upside down

for ya

 

[dolphinocean]

Yeah

I also have the law on my side for ya

No, your don't. You have only your self-serve interpretation of the law on your side.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Rachel won the day and the sympathy of the jury.
West brow beat her with minutia and widely missed the mark of his intentions to discredit her.
The white lies she was caught in were completely understandable while sticking to the important thrust of her perceptions, that Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor.
By openly admitting to her inconsequential fibs about her age and attending the wake her observations about what she heard in the phone call became more believable ...not less.