George Zimmerman Trial

[Bogtrotter07]

Don't worry, I have thick skin, buddy!

And what case are you watching? The detective on the stand just said GZ's story has been SOLID from the begining. If he's told the same story over and over, and you have an eyewitness that said they saw TM on top of GZ....I don't know what else you need to hear.


I rest my case. LOL

You mean the detective that offered his opinion and the judge struck it down? Who's opinion was rendered before the forensic evidence was in? Go ahead, tell me how that works out for you.

What else do I need to hear? Corroborative physical evidence: TM DNA on the gun; GZ blood on TM's hands and up his sleeves; damage to TM's knuckles consistent to what GZ says happened; GZ DNA on the palms of TM's hands from covering his mouth and nose (boogers and slobber, ever been suffocated?) Also, I am interested in finding out the real damage and trajectory of the wound. If it was a heart shot, I will bet that every expert in the world will tell you that TM didn't utter a word after that. Also if his lung pierced or spine was damaged, that alone could preclude most if not all of GZ's story from being true.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Like everyone else on here, I don't know what really happened. But the prosecution is sure doing a nice job of presenting the defense's case. If Bog's is right, the prosecution better have something really convincing because I haven't seen or heard anything yet that convinces me that Zimmerman was doing anything but defending himself. If he is guilty of anything it is being over-zealous.

I suspect the defense will present evidence at some point of previous criminal activity in that loction to justify Zimmerman's neighborhood watch activities. If that evidence exists and is presented in court, it is hard to argue that Zimmerman was targeting anyone in particular.

The prosecution wants the jury to hear the same thing over and over, and then they will shoot the whole story down. Since what actually happened, as shown by actual evidence will be different, they will make Zimmerman look like a pathological liar.

The evidence will be forensic in nature and corroborated by a slew of other witnesses. (I personally believe that the detective who offered his sympathetic opinion and the air marshal friend were accounted for by the prosecution. Look, they are already using the air marshal's testimony to discount Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's account to his friend was different than his account to the police. The prosecution will grind and make Zimmerman look like a huge liar, which I personally feel he is.

 

[irishpat183]

You mean the detective that offered his opinion and the judge struck it down? Who's opinion was rendered before the forensic evidence was in? Go ahead, tell me how that works out for you.

What else do I need to hear? Corroborative physical evidence: TM DNA on the gun; GZ blood on TM's hands and up his sleeves; damage to TM's knuckles consistent to what GZ says happened; GZ DNA on the palms of TM's hands from covering his mouth and nose (boogers and slobber, ever been suffocated?) Also, I am interested in finding out the real damage and trajectory of the wound. If it was a heart shot, I will bet that every expert in the world will tell you that TM didn't utter a word after that. Also if his lung pierced or spine was damaged, that alone could preclude most if not all of GZ's story from being true.

^the absence of that still doesn't say that GZ is a person guilty of murder 2. Sorry. BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT

And by the way, I've been in a few fights and skrimishes in my day...drop the "damage to the knuckles" crap. That isn't always the case when you've punched a guy in the face a few times. Especailly if you're too busy slamming his head into the pavement. As TM was doing to GZ.

And it has already been noted that the trajectory of the bullet came from a position from a shooter that was UNDER the victim. This, lone fact, will be what sets GZ free. If TM was, at ANYTIME, on top of GZ and hitting him...it's over. At that moment, it's self defense.

 

[irishpat183]

You mean the detective that offered his opinion and the judge struck it down? Who's opinion was rendered before the forensic evidence was in? Go ahead, tell me how that works out for you.

What else do I need to hear? Corroborative physical evidence: TM DNA on the gun; GZ blood on TM's hands and up his sleeves; damage to TM's knuckles consistent to what GZ says happened; GZ DNA on the palms of TM's hands from covering his mouth and nose (boogers and slobber, ever been suffocated?) Also, I am interested in finding out the real damage and trajectory of the wound. If it was a heart shot, I will bet that every expert in the world will tell you that TM didn't utter a word after that. Also if his lung pierced or spine was damaged, that alone could preclude most if not all of GZ's story from being true.

He simply said that GZ told the same story. He didn't comment on what he thought about the case.


Bogs....really.......Are you related to TM? LOL

 

[woolybug25]

Bogs....really.......Are you related to TM? LOL

If you never used that all caps LOL again, we would all be better for it...

Are you a 12 year old girl?

 

[irishpat183]

If you never used that all caps LOL again, we would all be better for it...

Are you a 12 year old girl?

I guess that's an intro-web slam? I suppose I'll just type out the phrase Laughing out loud from now on.

I can assure you that I"m not a 12 year old girl.......LOL

 

[woolybug25]

I guess that's an intro-web slam? I suppose I'll just type out the phrase Laughing out loud from now on.

I can assure you that I"m not a 12 year old girl.......LOL

I don't believe you... only 12 year old girls use LOL.

You must be 12.... and a girl...

 

[SaltyND24]

^the absence of that still doesn't say that GZ is a person guilty of murder 2. Sorry. BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT

And by the way, I've been in a few fights and skrimishes in my day...drop the "damage to the knuckles" crap. That isn't always the case when you've punched a guy in the face a few times. Especailly if you're too busy slamming his head into the pavement. As TM was doing to GZ.

And it has already been noted that the trajectory of the bullet came from a position from a shooter that was UNDER the victim. This, lone fact, will be what sets GZ free. If TM was, at ANYTIME, on top of GZ and hitting him...it's over. At that moment, it's self defense.

If that is all it takes, then I would never get into a fight in florida with their bullsh*t...Last I knew, Self-defense was when someone swung on you and you defended yourself, NOT "You swing on me, I kick your ***, then you get to then shoot me" Then again, that's the most important question essentially in this case...Who swung first?

 

[SoDakDomer]

^the absence of that still doesn't say that GZ is a person guilty of murder 2. Sorry. BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT

And by the way, I've been in a few fights and skrimishes in my day...drop the "damage to the knuckles" crap. That isn't always the case when you've punched a guy in the face a few times. Especailly if you're too busy slamming his head into the pavement. As TM was doing to GZ.

And it has already been noted that the trajectory of the bullet came from a position from a shooter that was UNDER the victim. This, lone fact, will be what sets GZ free. If TM was, at ANYTIME, on top of GZ and hitting him...it's over. At that moment, it's self defense.

Lets say I get jumped in an alley walking home from the bar, and the attacker knocks me to the ground. We are now in a scuffle on the ground. I start to get the best of the attacker and get on top of him and start smackin the sh*t out of him, but he then pulls out a gun and blasts me from his back on the bottom. That makes it self defense on his part?

 

[Wild Bill]

Lets say I get jumped in an alley walking home from the bar, and the attacker knocks me to the ground. We are now in a scuffle on the ground. I start to get the best of the attacker and get on top of him and start smackin the sh*t out of him, but he then pulls out a gun and blasts me from his back on the bottom. That makes it self defense on his part?

No. If he jumped you and knocked you to the ground, he would be characterized as the initial aggressor and would lose his right to self defense.

 

[Irish Insanity]

To me, GZ was the aggressor based on his actions from the start. But because he 'allegedly' got his *** kicked when TM was on top of him, its self defense. To me that is bullshit. It seems its been stated a few times thru this thread that the initial follow of TM and ignoring the phone operator and confronting TM (events at the beginning of the situation) are not relevant. To me responsibility for the end result lies upon any and all parties that we know could have taken different actions to not initiate the confrontation that eventually lead to the death. Seems so many people want to take responsibility for the eventual death of TM away from GZ because TM eventually simply stopped walking away.

I can say if I was in a situation as this one was at the beginning, I wouldn't have done what GZ did to begin with, and would have reacted in a similar manor as TM did after being followed and approached. But then again, I'm neither of them, so I guess those assumptions aren't reasonable.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

WOW! There are almost as many experts as 12 year old girls on this thread!

No one is taking account that under Florida law if GZ is warned to not follow someone, he loses his self defense argument. That has been stated and confirmed by people who get paid for it.

GZ is most probably a smegmorton who manufactured this story on the fly. The prosecution will point out plenty of inconsistencies. It has already pointed out differences between what he told the police and what he told his friend the Air Marshal.

GZ does not have the damage that his story would indicate. There are not the bushes where GZ claimed there were. There is not the damage to TM or blood on TM from GZ with the wound that the neighbor photographed that there should be. You can keep whistling the same tune Pat, but it really makes you sound like a 12 year old. Instead of arguing, just watch.

 

[FLDomer]

WOW! There are almost as many experts as 12 year old girls on this thread!

No one is taking account that under Florida law if GZ is warned to not follow someone, he loses his self defense argument. That has been stated and confirmed by people who get paid for it.

GZ is most probably a smegmorton who manufactured this story on the fly. The prosecution will point out plenty of inconsistencies. It has already pointed out differences between what he told the police and what he told his friend the Air Marshal.

GZ does not have the damage that his story would indicate. There are not the bushes where GZ claimed there were. There is not the damage to TM or blood on TM from GZ with the wound that the neighbor photographed that there should be. You can keep whistling the same tune Pat, but it really makes you sound like a 12 year old. Instead of arguing, just watch.

Can you show me this law...just curious to be aware of it since I live here. Also the quote from the 911 operator was along the lines of, you don't need to do that (get of the car and look for TM).

 

[Wild Bill]

WOW! There are almost as many experts as 12 year old girls on this thread!

No one is taking account that under Florida law if GZ is warned to not follow someone, he loses his self defense argument. That has been stated and confirmed by people who get paid for it.

GZ is most probably a smegmorton who manufactured this story on the fly. The prosecution will point out plenty of inconsistencies. It has already pointed out differences between what he told the police and what he told his friend the Air Marshal.

GZ does not have the damage that his story would indicate. There are not the bushes where GZ claimed there were. There is not the damage to TM or blood on TM from GZ with the wound that the neighbor photographed that there should be. You can keep whistling the same tune Pat, but it really makes you sound like a 12 year old. Instead of arguing, just watch.

Are you an expert?

 

[FLDomer]

Are you an expert?

Must have stayed at a Holiday Inn....

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Are you an expert?

Watch the video he posted above. A Florida legal analyst spoke on this subject for the local news.

 

[TK22867]

Of the 2 main witnesses, 1 of them is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

IMO, both TM and GZ are at fault and there is obviously no clear winner. It's just one of those things that happens in life that is very unfortunate.

Based on what we know, it is likely that TM did not respond to GZ's questions with "no sir, yes sir", or "just walking here sir". He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever his response to GZ was.

Also based on what we know, GZ could have just waited for the cops to show up and let them handle it. He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever he said to TM.

GZ doesn't seem like the person that is going to pull a gun on someone and shoot them i in cold blood because they are suspicious. GZ was clearly under attack at some point (has the wounds to prove it) and felt his life was in danger. Does that mean he was in defense mode the entire time? No.

Bottom line, IMO, they both are at fault, but TM had Skittles and Arizona Tea, while GZ had a gun. That's why TM is dead and not GZ. Could GZ's story be a load of bunk and perhaps he assaulted TM from the beginning, started to lose, and pulled a gun? Perhaps, but what we know of GZ and what we know of TM, not likely.

Unless this jury is insane, there is now way this ends in a guilty verdict.

 

[ACamp1900]

Of the 2 main witnesses, 1 of them is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

IMO, both TM and GZ are at fault and there is obviously no clear winner. It's just one of those things that happens in life that is very unfortunate.

Based on what we know, it is likely that TM did not respond to GZ's questions with "no sir, yes sir", or "just walking here sir". He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever his response to GZ was.

Also based on what we know, GZ could have just waited for the cops to show up and let them handle it. He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever he said to TM.

GZ doesn't seem like the person that is going to pull a gun on someone and shoot them i in cold blood because they are suspicious. GZ was clearly under attack at some point (has the wounds to prove it) and felt his life was in danger. Does that mean he was in defense mode the entire time? No.

Bottom line, IMO, they both are at fault, but TM had Skittles and Arizona Tea, while GZ had a gun. That's why TM is dead and not GZ. Could GZ's story be a load of bunk and perhaps he assaulted TM from the beginning, started to lose, and pulled a gun? Perhaps, but what we know of GZ and what we know of TM, not likely.

Unless this jury is insane, there is now way this ends in a guilty verdict.

I tend to agree with all of this... what I like most, not one thing that we know nothing about definitively, is presented as fact...

major reps.

 

[SaltyND24]

Of the 2 main witnesses, 1 of them is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

IMO, both TM and GZ are at fault and there is obviously no clear winner. It's just one of those things that happens in life that is very unfortunate.

Based on what we know, it is likely that TM did not respond to GZ's questions with "no sir, yes sir", or "just walking here sir". He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever his response to GZ was.

Also based on what we know, GZ could have just waited for the cops to show up and let them handle it. He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever he said to TM.

GZ doesn't seem like the person that is going to pull a gun on someone and shoot them i in cold blood because they are suspicious. GZ was clearly under attack at some point (has the wounds to prove it) and felt his life was in danger. Does that mean he was in defense mode the entire time? No.

Bottom line, IMO, they both are at fault, but TM had Skittles and Arizona Tea, while GZ had a gun. That's why TM is dead and not GZ. Could GZ's story be a load of bunk and perhaps he assaulted TM from the beginning, started to lose, and pulled a gun? Perhaps, but what we know of GZ and what we know of TM, not likely.

Unless this jury is insane, there is now way this ends in a guilty verdict.

In response to the first bolded text...I don't believe anybody in this thread has said anything close to that. Mainly because if he did that (pre-meditated), that would be 1st degree murder...To the 2nd bolded point, what do we know about either one to make that judgment? what has been said or presented that makes it unlikely that GZ is telling the truth and that TM was the aggressor?? We don't know sh*t, neither does the jury...Only people are GZ, TM, and God...2 of them not being able to share the details of that night

 

[connor_in]

Question...
If he gets off for murder 2, its double jeopardy to go back at him for manslaughter? Can jury recommend manslaughter?
(Too many lawyer shows...)

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Watch the video he posted above. A Florida legal analyst spoke on this subject for the local news.

There are twenty videos of different witness accounts. I posted that one because it actually made a legal distinction that I could verify for Florida law, that was contrary to what all the pro-Zimmerman users were saying (in public and in this thread) and what anyone else seemed to know.

I have tried patiently to research and share what I have found, so you don't have to listen to ratings oriented bull shiit the media spews, and then when the jury returns the verdict for the trial that is appropriate, b1tch about the results.

I am not trying to argue with anyone. The police department was very negligent in performing its duties, so that is working in Zimmerman's favor. Other than that, this is a, to borrow a phrase, a "ground and pound" case.

The prosecutor will strike blow after blow exposing the evidence and assaulting Zimmerman's character, until anyone would convict. It is all there to do. The head of the police department has been replaced. How many others do you think have secure jobs?

My posts in this thread have not been about being right or an expert, they have been about repeating what the people that know actually say. For what it is worth.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

There are twenty videos of different witness accounts. I posted that one because it actually made a legal distinction that I could verify for Florida law, that was contrary to what all the pro-Zimmerman users were saying (in public and in this thread) and what anyone else seemed to know.

I have tried patiently to research and share what I have found, so you don't have to listen to ratings oriented bull shiit the media spews, and then when the jury returns the verdict for the trial that is appropriate, b1tch about the results.

I am not trying to argue with anyone. The police department was very negligent in performing its duties, so that is working in Zimmerman's favor. Other than that, this is a, to borrow a phrase, a "ground and pound" case.

The prosecutor will strike blow after blow exposing the evidence and assaulting Zimmerman's character, until anyone would convict. It is all there to do. The head of the police department has been replaced. How many others do you think have secure jobs?

My posts in this thread have not been about being right or an expert, they have been about repeating what the people that know actually say. For what it is worth.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all, I was just redirecting them to the video you posted because the legal analyst directly answers their question.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all, I was just redirecting them to the video you posted because the legal analyst directly answers their question.

I know that. Go raibh míle maith agat!

 

[FLDomer]

You mean the detective that offered his opinion and the judge struck it down? Who's opinion was rendered before the forensic evidence was in? Go ahead, tell me how that works out for you.

What else do I need to hear? Corroborative physical evidence: TM DNA on the gun; GZ blood on TM's hands and up his sleeves; damage to TM's knuckles consistent to what GZ says happened; GZ DNA on the palms of TM's hands from covering his mouth and nose (boogers and slobber, ever been suffocated?) Also, I am interested in finding out the real damage and trajectory of the wound. If it was a heart shot, I will bet that every expert in the world will tell you that TM didn't utter a word after that. Also if his lung pierced or spine was damaged, that alone could preclude most if not all of GZ's story from being true.

'Rao testified that Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with a strike. He had no other bruising or lacerations on his body, Rao said.'

Read more: 11 things you may have missed: Day 7 of the Zimmerman trial | WESH Home - George Zimmerman Murder Trial

 

[Bogtrotter07]

'Rao testified that Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with a strike. He had no other bruising or lacerations on his body, Rao said.'

Read more: 11 things you may have missed: Day 7 of the Zimmerman trial | WESH Home - George Zimmerman Murder Trial

Rao also said Zimmerman's facial injuries were consistent with one hit that caused the injuries to his nose and forehead, not several hits.

Read more: Medical examiner: George Zimmerman's injuries not consistent with story | George Zimmerman Murder Trial - WESH Home

Remember Zimmerman's statement, "repeatedly struck" and "fear for his life." And remember Good's statement where we got the term "ground and pound." To quote from a favorite 50's show, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

 

[FLDomer]

Read more: Medical examiner: George Zimmerman's injuries not consistent with story | George Zimmerman Murder Trial - WESH Home

Remember Zimmerman's statement, "repeatedly struck" and "fear for his life." And remember Good's statement where we got the term "ground and pound." To quote from a favorite 50's show, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

I do not disagree with what you noted, I read it too. I was replying to the definitive statements earlier posted about TM not having damage to his knuckles from blows. The defense is cross examining and seems to be able to being able to place "doubt" and to convict it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Who knows the mind of GZ and what fears he had running through his head or for that matter what was going through TMs head. I just see it being hard to convict beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the 2nd degree. Also from the link you see the lead detective that GZ did nothing illegal about getting out of his car and looking for TM...another statement you presented to be fact was that he was breaking FL law.

 

[irishpat183]

Of the 2 main witnesses, 1 of them is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

IMO, both TM and GZ are at fault and there is obviously no clear winner. It's just one of those things that happens in life that is very unfortunate.

Based on what we know, it is likely that TM did not respond to GZ's questions with "no sir, yes sir", or "just walking here sir". He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever his response to GZ was.

Also based on what we know, GZ could have just waited for the cops to show up and let them handle it. He did not help diffuse the situation, whatever he said to TM.

GZ doesn't seem like the person that is going to pull a gun on someone and shoot them i in cold blood because they are suspicious. GZ was clearly under attack at some point (has the wounds to prove it) and felt his life was in danger. Does that mean he was in defense mode the entire time? No.

Bottom line, IMO, they both are at fault, but TM had Skittles and Arizona Tea, while GZ had a gun. That's why TM is dead and not GZ. Could GZ's story be a load of bunk and perhaps he assaulted TM from the beginning, started to lose, and pulled a gun? Perhaps, but what we know of GZ and what we know of TM, not likely.

Unless this jury is insane, there is now way this ends in a guilty verdict.

Exactly.

We're trying to paint GZ guilty with bullshit like "Well his wounds weren't THAT bad" ....Doesn't matter. If YOU feel YOUR life is in danger, then you must defend yourself and that's all.

One person may not have felt TM on top of them was a threat to their life....but that doesn't matter if you ask the next guy. How do we know that TM wouldn't have killed him had GZ not had a gun!?!?!

This is why I'm with you....no way they get murder 2...could they squeak out manslaughter? Sure, if the jury buys the emotional card.

 

[irishpat183]

I do not disagree with what you noted, I read it too. I was replying to the definitive statements earlier posted about TM not having damage to his knuckles from blows. The defense is cross examining and seems to be able to being able to place "doubt" and to convict it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Who knows the mind of GZ and what fears he had running through his head or for that matter what was going through TMs head. I just see it being hard to convict beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the 2nd degree. Also from the link you see the lead detective that GZ did nothing illegal about getting out of his car and looking for TM...another statement you presented to be fact was that he was breaking FL law.

Bogs is actually the lead prosecutor...LOL

 

[SoDakDomer]

If they would have charged him with manslaughter I think they get a guilty verdict. Murder 2 I'm not so sure about.

 

[greyhammer90]

I feel bad for the prosecution attorney. I mean you have this big case where all these people want this guy guilty, and you have nothing to go on as far as evidence.

I bet he's wondering what the hell happened for him to get put in a position like this.