What questions would you like answered at the Zimmerman trial? [W:209:368:403]

[buck]

Don't disagree, but I true try to be consistent (I'm on other boards as well). When someone claims Zimmerman started it I ask for the same as when someone claims Martin started it.

To date no one has provided any witness or physical/forensic evidence to show exactly who started the physical altercation.

I do not believe there is any proof of exactly who started it. We do know George had looked like he just got his butt beat and he had injuries fairly consistent with what he described. What do you think the outcome should be if no one can definitively state who started it?

 

[buck]

How does he from not being scared to scared once he gets out of the car lol. His actions are not consistent with somebody afraid of another person.

Once he gets out of the car, some guy attacked him and continued to beat him. I'd be scared. Would you? I noticed you didn't answer. If you were being beaten, would you fear for your life/bodily harm.

 

[AlfredENeuman]

For a Murder 2 charge where the standard is a "depraved mind irregardless of human life", ya you would have to show me more.

For Manslaughter where the standard is "culpable negligence", you only have to show that Zimmerman was negligent in his actions leading up to the event and was therefore responsible. But, then Zimmerman can still claim self-defense and have valid immunity. The state to fully remove that immunity would then have to show, probably under 776.041(2)(a) that with the escalation of the fight that Zimmerman was presented with a opportunity to escape and chose instead to draw and fire his weapon.



>>>>

That's fair enough, but I'm trying to get to the place where we could agree that Zimmerman is lying about what happened. I'm not sure that the law should favor someone who kills an unarmed person, claims self-defense, but is caught lying, simply because no one else was there to disprove his story to concretely prove what actually did happen. IMO if you kill someone your story should hold up or you should go to prison. I don't care if it's manslaughter or second degree murder. I don't think it was pre-meditated certainly, but I don't believe it was in self-defense either. I am under the impression that manslaughter will be an option for the jury.

 

[AlfredENeuman]

Once he gets out of the car, some guy attacked him and continued to beat him. I'd be scared. Would you? I noticed you didn't answer. If you were being beaten, would you fear for your life/bodily harm.

What if I don't believe he was attacked, or that Martin continued to beat him at all? What if I think they mostly wrestled on the ground and that Zimmerman started all this by attempting to detain Martin, seeing himself as a pseudo law enforcement officer? Because to me, that's what the evidence shows.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Let me throw out a hypothetical to you. Suppose that the prosecution can prove to you, without any doubt, that Zimmerman made up key parts of his story of how he came to be where he was. Let's say that the state can convince you that Mr. Zimmerman is an extremely deceitful person and lied to the police and prosecutors.

If that were proven to you, would you still consider him not guilty of a crime? Because we'll never know who was the "aggressor" because we can only rely on Zimmerman's version of how things got to a fight. The other witnesses (save for Witness 8, who only heard the beginning of the confrontation) only came upon the scene once it was in full swing. So the time between when the phone disconnected and the witnesses saw the two of them on the ground is solely accounted for by the defendant. If he's lying, can't we infer that it's because the truth is incriminating?

In case you have not noticed, nearly every witness on the list has changed "key parts" of their stories. In a very stressful situation it is often difficult to recount/recall every detail. His "lying", or changing his recollection, like that of the other witnesses, may be simply because they wished to please the interviewing officer by answering with as much detail as possible, only to later realize that they had doubts about some detail or recalled something that did not quite fit with their original statements.

As far as witness #8 goes, assuming that is the one hearing the "confrontation" on the phone, they never said any blows were exchanged, simply that the two were talking (questioning each other?). Before witness #8 can be believed, any more than the others, one must determine if the later lie about (not) attending the funeral (even fabricating a hospital visit to back it up) was damaging enough to know that they would say whatever they thought was "helpful" or "appropriate". Not many witnesses in this case have been consistant with their truthfullness, or exhibited the ability to stay with a single, consistant story.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I do not believe there is any proof of exactly who started it. We do know George had looked like he just got his butt beat and he had injuries fairly consistent with what he described. What do you think the outcome should be if no one can definitively state who started it?

I can't make a call on what the jury will say.

But this post is relevant to the question -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-trial-w-209-368-403-a-31.html#post1061961272



>>>>

 

[AlfredENeuman]

In case you have not noticed, nearly every witness on the list has changed "key parts" of their stories. In a very stressful situation it is often difficult to recount/recall every detail. His "lying", or changing his recollection, like that of the other witnesses, may be simply because they wished to please the interviewing officer by answering with as much detail as possible, only to later realize that they had doubts about some detail or recalled something that did not quite fit with their original statements.

As far as witness #8 goes, assuming that is the one hearing the "confrontation" on the phone, they never said any blows were exchanged, simply that the two were talking (questioning each other?). Before witness #8 can be believed, any more than the others, one must determine if the later lie about (not) attending the funeral (even fabricating a hospital visit to back it up) was damaging enough to know that they would say whatever they thought was "helpful" or "appropriate". Not many witnesses in this case have been consistant with their truthfullness, or exhibited the ability to stay with a single, consistant story.

My question is not whether or not he told a consistent story, but whether or not you become convinced he's being completely deceptive and has no credibility. Certainly this goes to the other witnesses, Witness 8 included, but the only witness who truly matters here is the person who killed Trayvon Martin.

If you became convinced that Zimmerman was a total liar would you acquit him anyway?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm going to reword this just a little: "Do you really feel that being observed, followed in a vehicle, attempt to evade on foot only to have the person continue to follow in the vehicle, they run away to an area where the vehicle can go and have the person jump out and follow you on foot, someone that never identified them-self or their purpose approached and that gives you the right to defend yourself from a perceived threat?"

Not saying that Martin struck another person, there is no evidence of that besides Zimmerman's version of events, but under that scenario? Ya.

I have a 22-year old daughter away from home at school. We did martial arts and self-defense when she was younger. In that situation she's been trained to take her keys and protrude them through her fingers in a fist. Go for the eyes to blind and then go for a knee to prevent further pursuit. I'd rather pay for her defense than her funeral.


>>>>

As I have said to others, GZ made serious mistakes in judgement, especially in not relating to TM the reason for his interest in him, but none that I see as grounds for TM to strike him. As the anecdote about your daughter's "training" indicates, you must see the distinct possibility that TM may have decided to strike. You don't bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.

 

[buck]

I can't make a call on what the jury will say.

But this post is relevant to the question -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-trial-w-209-368-403-a-31.html#post1061961272



>>>>

They'll have a hard time showing that Zimm could have escaped... But your opinion. If it can not be determined who started the fight... and only one party has injuries (not counting the GSW) what do you think should occur?

Do you think we should find people guilty because we can't tell if they started something, or do you think we should only find people guilty because we know they started something?

 

[ttwtt78640]

My question is not whether or not he told a consistent story, but whether or not you become convinced he's being completely deceptive and has no credibility. Certainly this goes to the other witnesses, Witness 8 included, but the only witness who truly matters here is the person who killed Trayvon Martin.

If you became convinced that Zimmerman was a total liar would you acquit him anyway?

No. The problem in what you present, is that you have not said what would make you (or me) convinced that GZ is a "total liar". We have documented evidence that witness 8 is a liar, even when under oath - does that qualify as a "total liar'? As I said before, changing even "key parts" of a witness statement/story is not necessarily indication of being a "total liar".

 

[WorldWatcher]

As I have said to others, GZ made serious mistakes in judgement, especially in not relating to TM the reason for his interest in him, but none that I see as grounds for TM to strike him. As the anecdote about your daughter's "training" indicates, you must see the distinct possibility that TM may have decided to strike. You don't bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.

Yes, TM may have struck first. On the other hand TM may have turned to leave for a 3rd time and GZ garbed him (misdemeanor assault & felony unlawful detention) and TM swung followed by the rest of the fight.

When either side claims to know exactly who swung first I know in my mind it's pure BS. The only two that know for sure are Martin and he's dead and Zimmerman and he's the one charged, has a motive to make himself look innocent, and has already showed a willingness to lie to the court.

So all I can say is "Man, I'm glad I'm not on that jury." LOL


>>>>

 

[AlfredENeuman]

As I have said to others, GZ made serious mistakes in judgement, especially in not relating to TM the reason for his interest in him, but none that I see as grounds for TM to strike him. As the anecdote about your daughter's "training" indicates, you must see the distinct possibility that TM may have decided to strike. You don't bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.

Allow me to point out a significant lie that I believe he told in his account. He claims that after he saw Martin run behind the row houses, Martin returned all the way back again and circled his car in a menacing manner. I contend that this never happened and is easily proven false. I hate the commentary on this video, but as far as I know it's the only one where someone walks the path that Martin walked and it's matched up with the NEN call.

George Zimmerman-It's Smaller than you think-That's What Shellie Said 'Part 1' - YouTube

[ETA: Sorry, the start time isn't working for me, so if you want to skip ahead, start at the 3:30 mark.]

Now here's why I think this will prove this lie. At the time that the guy in this video gets to the clubhouse, you hear "****, he's running", so we know that this is when Zimmerman exits his vehicle for good and the dispatcher asks "are you following him", right?

So if he could only have reached the clubhouse before Zimmerman exits, how is it that he ran behind the row houses, circled back onto the street, and then circled the car, then ran again?

He couldn't, therefore Mr. Zimmerman completely made that part up in an effort to make Martin seem menacing. The prosecution is certainly going to have their own version of this where they walk the path, match up the locations to the NEN call, and show that Martin ran somewhere just past the clubhouse and that as soon as he did, Zimmerman exited his vehicle.

So, ignore this guy's commentary and just listen to the NEN call and match it to the locations up until about the 5 minute mark when he says "he's coming to check me out". "****, he's running" happens at the 5:45 mark. That's as far as you need with the video, since he goes off on some weird theory. But basically, there's no way any of that circling happened.

And remember, what made Martin suspicious was that he was walking slowly, so if anything, this guy is walking too quickly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They'll have a hard time showing that Zimm could have escaped... But your opinion. If it can not be determined who started the fight... and only one party has injuries (not counting the GSW) what do you think should occur?

Do you think we should find people guilty because we can't tell if they started something, or do you think we should only find people guilty because we know they started something?

You are asking a scenario based opinion not relevant to the Zimmerman case, because there is evidence that the jury will have to take into consideration such as the lack of GSR, the lack of blood, and the bullet trajectory being inconsistent with the physical orientation of the two bodies as Zimmerman described.

However, under such a scenario you describe, a reasonable person in good faith (such as I believe I am) can vote "not guilty" in good conscience. Not necessarily because I believe the individuals story, but because the prosecution has failed to meet the standard under burden of proof.

Even with the Zimmerman case, given the information currently available to the public, I would vote "not guilty" to Murder 2. Not because I buy Zimmerman's story(ies) hook-line-and-sinker, but because the state has set such a high bar with the charge which is a "depraved mind irregardless of human live". Just doesn't seem to apply. Manslaughter would be a possibility, but that would depend on expert testimony and specifically how the jury is to view 776.041(2)(a) in light of the GSR, Blood, and Trajectory information. If Zimmerman is to be viewed as the initial aggressor, did he create separation and fail to take an opportunity to retreat or did he take the opportunity to draw and fire.


>>>>

 

[sharon]

They'll have a hard time showing that Zimm could have escaped... But your opinion. If it can not be determined who started the fight... and only one party has injuries (not counting the GSW) what do you think should occur?

Do you think we should find people guilty because we can't tell if they started something, or do you think we should only find people guilty because we know they started something?

Idiot George could have spoken up like an adult and identified himself.

 

[Excon]

Yeah, I wouldn't get too excited about your cherry-picked evidence.

From that interview:

And later:

Better luck next time.

:doh
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Sorry charlie!

You are the one cherry picking. Most likely to obfuscate the issue.

What you are quoting, is her saying she could not identify who was making the first three volley of sounds they heard.

@ the 05:39 mark

Serino: She's heard the exchange that was like a three part volley. Um, "Hey, hey, hey.".
Then all of a sudden there was the scuffling and fighting and they didn't see.
and uh, they couldn't basically make out what they were saying.

Singleton: Do you, you, spoke to, spoken to George on many occasions?

W#11: Not many, he comes to the meetings ...

Singleton: But you would know, you would recognize his voice possibly, or ...?

W#11: I would, but not, no not in that situation I wouldn't. You know what I mean, like it wasn't, it was just kind of like two men, yelling, you know like it could have been any two men.

Singleton: So when you, when we talk about this exchange between them, you don't know if George was speaking, started the conversation, or ...

W#11: At first we didn't even know how many men it was. It could have been four guys. It sounded, you know, he'll probably tell you the same thing, It sounded like a couple of drunk guys or a group of drunk guys, that's why, you know, he was maybe going to go out and see what was going on, but we didn't know how many people were out there.
So it just sounded like "hey, hey ...", not hey even but [unintelligible - over talk by Serino] you know, yelling like "what ya doing", "what do you want", "theuh" like that. Just ...

Singleton: Going back and forth

W#11: Yeah.

Singleton: For about how long?

W#11: Not long. But I mean maybe like three ...

Serino: Three exchanges. Three volleys.

W#11: ... things like that. And it just started scuffling like rolling around on the cement, on the sidewalk.​

They were clearly speaking about the three volleys of sounds, so you are still left with her saying it was Zimmerman yelling for help the whole time.

Sorry charlie, better luck next time.

 

[Excon]

To date no one has provided any witness or physical/forensic evidence to show exactly who started the physical altercation.

And that simply isn't true, as Zimmerman is a witness.
And a believable witness because of the circumstances surrounding his account.
Which is unlike DeeDee, who is not believable because of the circumstances surrounding her account. Which was later compounded by her lies.
And yet you use DeeDee's bs to support your arguments. Strange indeed!
Sounds to me like hypocrisy and bias.

and Zimmerman and he's the one charged, has a motive to make himself look innocent, and has already showed a willingness to lie to the court.

Your so called motive doesn't really exist. Being suspect as he naturally would be, can be seen to be irrelevant after Serino stated what he did about "everything" adding up to his account. To sit there and not recognize that speaks to your bias.

And no, he has not shown a willingness to lie to the court. That statement is as bad as you saying he worked out without knowing if he actually did.

---

How does he from not being scared to scared once he gets out of the car lol. His actions are not consistent with somebody afraid of another person.

You have already been told that ™ was not in sight, so there was no reason not to get out of the car.

---

That's fair enough, but I'm trying to get to the place where we could agree that Zimmerman is lying about what happened.

I am sure you would like to get there, but it is an impossibility, as he isn't.

---

Idiot George could have spoken up like an adult and identified himself.

You keep spewing this nonsense.
1.) He didn't have to.
2.) He shouldn't make contact with any suspicious person. So he should not have, as he did.
3.) The only other time he had to say something was when ™ was already in attack. So it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

 

[Excon]

What questions would you like answered at the Zimmerman trial?

Yeah.
Why pictures like this of ™ flashing thug sign aren't allowed in?

Never mind, I already know why, it is irrelevant, right? iLOL :doh

You can thank Sundance over at the CTH for coming across that. :tongue4:

 

[Paperview]

What questions would you like answered at the Zimmerman trial?

Yeah.
Why pictures like this of ™ flashing thug sign aren't allowed in?


http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/trey.jpg[/img


Never mind, I already know why, it is irrelevant, right? iLOL :doh

You can thank Sundance over at the CTH for coming across that. :tongue4:[/QUOTE]
What the hell is wrong with you?

That's not Trayvon.

Unsurprising it comes from the racist idiots at the Treehouse, where all black people are thugs, and all black people look alike.

 

[Grim17]

What the hell is wrong with you?

That's not Trayvon.

Unsurprising it comes from the racist idiots at the Treehouse, where all black people are thugs, and all black people look alike.

I'm not saying that I doubt you, but the person pictured on the right sure looks like Martin to me.

 

[sharon]

And that simply isn't true, as Zimmerman is a witness.
And a believable witness because of the circumstances surrounding his account.
Which is unlike DeeDee, who is not believable because of the circumstances surrounding her account. Which was later compounded by her lies.
And yet you use DeeDee's bs to support your arguments. Strange indeed!
Sounds to me like hypocrisy and bias.



Your so called motive doesn't really exist. Being suspect as he naturally would be, can be seen to be irrelevant after Serino stated what he did about "everything" adding up to his account. To sit there and not recognize that speaks to your bias.

And no, he has not shown a willingness to lie to the court. That statement is as bad as you saying he worked out without knowing if he actually did.

---

You have already been told that ™ was not in sight, so there was no reason not to get out of the car.

---

I am sure you would like to get there, but it is an impossibility, as he isn't.

---

You keep spewing this nonsense.
1.) He didn't have to.
2.) He shouldn't make contact with any suspicious person. So he should not have, as he did.
3.) The only other time he had to say something was when ™ was already in attack. So it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

Serino and Singleton disagreed.. Its in the SPD interviews.

 

[tashatexas77048]

As I have said to others, GZ made serious mistakes in judgement, especially in not relating to TM the reason for his interest in him, but none that I see as grounds for TM to strike him. As the anecdote about your daughter's "training" indicates, you must see the distinct possibility that TM may have decided to strike. You don't bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.

Why do you continue to repeat Zimmerman's tailor made for bigots tail of Martin striking him out of the blue? There is NO EVIDENCE of this nor does it make sense when we know the two players argued before anything happened. Zimmerman 100% left out the fact that he even exchanged words with Martin beyond a quiet "I don't have a problem" so why do you take what he says happened afterwards at 100% face value?

 

[sharon]

Community Of Sanford, Florida Awaits Trayvon Martin Shooting Trial - Pictures - Zimbio

This slide show may help.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do you continue to repeat Zimmerman's tailor made for bigots tail of Martin striking him out of the blue? There is NO EVIDENCE of this nor does it make sense when we know the two players argued before anything happened. Zimmerman 100% left out the fact that he even exchanged words with Martin beyond a quiet "I don't have a problem" so why do you take what he says happened afterwards at 100% face value?

We "know" this how? Care to cite any witness statement(s) to that "fact"?

 

[niff]

Why do so many young Black men walk around with 'poopie pants' playing wiff their 'pee-pees'?
It's like they are still two years old.

 

[sharon]

Why do so many young Black men walk around with 'poopie pants' playing wiff their 'pee-pees'?
It's like they are still two years old.

What does that have to do with Trayvon?