BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 07:20 PM

Well, Greg, ol' buddy... That is why I don't respond to BB's posts any more... He loves to invent things he wishes you had said, claims you said them and then calls you a bunch of filthy names for having said them... That, IMHO, is irrational... Not to mention dishonest...

Like I said... I once knew a very intelligent clinical psychologist when I was in social work who told me "you can't reason with illogical and crazy people"... Important lesson... You might want to just leave BB alone... His arguments are childish, irrational and dishonest and smokescreens for his highly partisanship... He doesn't give a rip about justice... Leave him alone...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:30 PM

Most certainly, but I cannot talk about this anymore myself. It's so ugly, I don't want to even think about it anymore.

Brucie, you're a pain in the ass, but then, aren't we all?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 04:00 PM

I'll start this slowly Brucie. What Martin THOUGHT is not in point. Only what he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 03:49 PM

Like I said, Beardy - pitiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 03:04 PM

Greggie boy,

I haven't used "lynching bastards" - I don't know your mother's marital status, if you had a mother and did not hatch from under some rock.


I use words that describe what people have shown themselves in their own words, in their own post, to be. So, in your case, "lying racist scumbag" is the appropriate term.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:53 PM

Gee whiz, Beardy, I couldn't find any "fucking scumbags" or
"racist scumbags", or "fucking racists", or "lynching bastards" or "fucking liberals", "no fucking mentions", "resident lynch mobs", "lying racist scumbags", "acting like a scumbag", "you ARE full of shit" or any of tha tsort of thing in any of my posts that you so generously provided.

OH WAIT! Those are YOUR words!

I'm sure your reading public would be grateful for any other juvenile nonsense that you'd care to pollute this thread with.

Have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:45 PM

"You got me." Really? Who says that except in an old western? Almost makes it sound like it wasn't so bad doesn't it?

The fact that George Zimmerman was relieved when he learned the shooting was videotaped does not impress me. When a cop says something like that during interrogation, there is at least a 50% chance he or she is lying. I know that. So does George. Let's not forget how he lied to the court about his assets. George is a liar.

And where was this photo in the immediate aftermath of the incident? Hard to believe it would not have surfaced when the need to gain public sympathy was so urgent that the Zimmerman Defense League" hauled out the friendly neighbor of color to say what a good guy he is. That is not a proper police evidence photo by the way. The video however is evidence. And it tells a different story.

Zimmerman Video

And, you cannot beat somebody up in the way Zimmerman claimed he was assaulted without getting some of that person's DNA on your hands.

There's a lot of lying going on here. A lot of it. Can I refresh your memory a bit more Brucie? Trayvon's body laid in the medical examiner's office for three days before his parents were notified. During this period the parents were frantically searching for him and had even reported him missing to the Sanford police. Unbelievable.

But by all means, our primary concern should be whether Whittle Wannabe Georgie gets a "fair" trial. To hell with Trayvon's parents right? After all, they're only black people. They will just have to make due with whatever treatment they are given.

If nothing else, this incident in its entirety is truly eye-opening.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:37 PM

Wishin' in one hand... shittin' in the other...which do you think will fill up first??!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:28 PM

whatever you might wish,

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:17 PM

Dickie,

" Only (a) what actually happened and (b) what Zimmerman reasonably believed are in point (to an issue of self-defence). The contents of a phone about which Zimmerman knew nothing illuminate neither."

I think you are wrong. The contents of text menages might well provide supporting evidence for what happened. If they stated "If anyone follows me, I am going to run like hell!" the defense case is weakened- if they stated "If anyone tries to stop me I'l beat the shit out of them." the defense case is strengthened.

When the defense claims that MARTIN attacked Zimmerman ( leading to the shooting), evidence that MARTIN had intentions of violence would certainly be significant evidence, and bolster the case of the Defense. I do not know if that is the case in these texts, but it could be, and thus the need for the JUDGE to rule on admissibility as evidence, NOT the prosecution.

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, it would reinforce a claim that Zimmerman was in fear of his life, and support the rest of Zimmerman's testimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:04 PM

Brucie - whatever you might wish, Martin is not on trial. His state of mind is not in point. His intentions are not in point. His character is not in issue. Only (a) what actually happened and (b) what Zimmerman reasonably believed are in point (to an issue of self-defence). The contents of a phone about which Zimmerman knew nothing illuminate neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:52 PM

Don Firth: "Page after page of hysteria.
THAT's what hysteria looks like."


Don should know!!!....Mudcat's got quite a few of his...wanna' see em?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:18 PM

Let me know if I missed any of your words of wisdom, Greg.


I want to give you full credit for your contributions to demonstrating Liberal attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:18 PM

Page after page of hysteria.

THAT's what hysteria looks like.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:14 PM

"You don't have to be a racist to recognize racism at work."

No, but to change one's opinion about what is right based on the race of the individuals IS racism.

And that is what I see here.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:12 PM

Greg F''s contribution to reasonable discussion on this thread:


Date: 31 May 13 - 12:53 PM

You're getting overexcited again, Beardy, and somewhat incoherent as a result. Also not good for your blood pressure, you know.


Date: 31 May 13 - 03:21 PM

However, I don't see the purpose of the thread,


There is none. Beardy doesn't have to have a purpose to post nonsensical crap ad nauseum.


Date: 31 May 13 - 03:34 PM

BLINDFOLDED? Hell, he can cut and paste mountains of bullshit IN HIS SLEEP!


Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:17 PM

A bullet from the back of a bush
Took Medgar Evers' blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain...

But he sure as hell can be blamed.



Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM

Why have any trial at all? Why look at the evidence? Why bother risking a JURY might let him go?

Is that what you are saying???

No, that's what YOU'RE saying, Beardy, or rather shouting/ranting.

I haven't read anything by Bobert that says or remotely implies any of your screed.





Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM

Yes, beardedbruce... Use your wildest imagination

Should be no problem, his wildest imagination is the motivating factor behind most, if not all, of his threads.
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 12:30 PM

Those aren't "reasons" Beardy - they're suppositions, BS and smoke.

As usual.

I suppose if he thought he was the Lone Ranger or Spiderman that would be just fine with you as well?

Does reality have no meaning for you?


Date: 05 Jun 13 - 02:46 PM

Elmore, Beardy's fixation with lynching is only one of a host of his problems which need to be addressed by mental health professionals.

Don't get him started calling anyone who disagrees with him a "racist scumbag" - as if Jews were a "race".


Date: 05 Jun 13 - 03:06 PM

Actually, Elmore, he's amusing in small doses - kind of like a toddler throwing a tantrum.


Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:07 PM

So What, Beardy?


Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:33 AM

Suspect BB wouldn't [disagree], either...

Oh, you kidder, you. That really IS amusing.


Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM

That's right, Beardy - you want a "fair trial - just so long as Zimmerman is exonerated.

Gotcha.


Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:35 PM

They probably have read it, Richard - they just are incapable of comprehending it.


Date: 13 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM

Calm down, Beardy - you're spraying spittle again.


Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM

Send me to the back of the bus.

I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass.

So, Bullshit: how old were you in 1963?


Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:33 PM

So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"?

Since he used "just" in *his* posting. He considers that *any* second class citizen must refer to Negros, from his postings.

All YOUR words, BeardedBullshit, not mine. In addition to other problems, you apparently have difficulty in reading and/or comprehending the English Language.

Get help.


Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:31 PM

The US belief that resort to a firearm is socially normative is out of whack by many other countries' standards.

Its also out of whack with the standards of many - if not most - thinking people here in the US too, Richard.


Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:52 AM

So what is the difference between you and the Klan

The KLAN? "LYNCHING"?? "The color of your sheet"??

This poses another question: What is the difference between yourself and an obnoxious, irrational, ignorant, foul-mouther asshole?



Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Pretty limp-dick response, Beardy. Where's your usual verbosity & rapier-like wit?


Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:15 AM

Necrophilia?


Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:31 AM

I am interested in finding out the truth

Yeah, right.

By the way, Beardy, what's this lynching fixation of yours? Someone already asked you that a while back, & you failed to answer.


Date: 28 Jun 13 - 12:31 PM

Not only would Texas buy him a new gun, they'd elect him to the US Senate.


Date: 28 Jun 13 - 02:59 PM

Oh, dear - another bout of bloody postarrhoea. Condition may be approaching critical.



Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:18 PM

Hey! Ol' Lynchin' Bigot Bruce is back! With the same lynchin', bigot horseshit!

Tiresome.


Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:36 PM

Yet he does accept it, because the victim was black and the defendent is white/hispanic.

More bullshit from Bullshit Bruce, who chooses to conveniently ignore 300 years of southern history and precedents.

For an obnoxious asshole that keeps going on about "lynching" one might expect some actual knowledge of the history of lynching- suggest that he read Philip Dray's At The Hands Of Persons Unknown for a start, or any of DuBois' works on the subject, or the sources cited in Dray's bibliography.


Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:43 PM

Do you have more evidence that I have missed?

BullshitBruce does not, and never has, let actual evidence get in the way of his Niagara of horseshit, KB.


Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:28 PM

Yeah, Don, but Paladin was more often than not on the right side of things- he did have a pretty good moral code.



Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:47 PM

Roger that.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM

And shame on Beardy as a Florida Apologist.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 10:56 AM

My apologies, all. I appear to have provoked yet another bout of bloody bloggy Beardy postarrhoea.

Perhaps a change in his diet would be helpful, it the paregoric isn't working.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM

Bruce is indeed entitled to his own opinion, Dan, however perverse and unreasonable and unsupported by fact and/or logic that opinion may be.

But he is not entitled to his own facts, as someone once said.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

Oh, and by the way, Dan - the person most addicted to name-calling is Bruce himself, as is obvious in almost all of his posts.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM

So Beardy, the "facts" on which you base your "case" - such as it is - are "could have", "might have been", "perhaps", "should have", "what if", "maybe", "would possibly" & etc.

The sad thing is that you're serious.


Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:39 PM

Do I need to post a few hundred of your recent posts in their entirety...

Oh, please do, Beardy. That would be great.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:56 PM

In ANY case, if one reverses the races of the individuals involved, and comes to a different conclusion, then one is a racist. Period. Too many here have demonstrated that that is what they are,

You don't have to be a racist to recognize racism at work.

I agree with the idea that if the man with the gun had been black he would probably have been arrested that night.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:48 PM

The sad thing is that you are unwilling to address the facts, and insist on attacking those you disagree with.

This indicates that you have no factual basis for your opinions, and thus have to attck the person who points out things that do not meet your desired view.


I was asked to give a POSSIBLE example of evidence that COULD have been in the information withheld by the Prosecution- I did so, even if Bobert and Richard have continued to lie and claim I did not. If it is withheld, a mistrial could be declared, and I doubt anyone wants that- thou I suspect Bobert will support social unrest and riots regardless of what happens, just so he can claim that anyone who disagrees with him is racist.

I have presented the information avaliable from the trial, while others present only unsupported opinions.


The sad thing is that you are the representatives of those who disagree with me- what a letdown for the Liberals of the world, if you are the best that they can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:39 PM

Do I need to post a few hundred of your recent posts in their entirety...

Oh, please do, Beardy. That would be great.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM

So Beardy, the "facts" on which you base your "case" - such as it is - are "could have", "might have been", "perhaps", "should have", "what if", "maybe", "would possibly" & etc.

The sad thing is that you're serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:36 PM

"the person most addicted to name-calling is Bruce himself, as is obvious in almost all of his posts."


Bullshit, Greggie boy. Anyone can look at your posts and see that you can't even post without name calling. Do I need to post a few hundred of your recent posts in their entirety to show what you consider "discussion" if you don't agree with the other person???

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:32 PM

Whereas Greggie boy and Bobert the Magnificent are entitled to state their opinion and require all to accept it as proven fact, even when contradicted by the Real World.


After all, Bobert knows the Truth, regardless of what happened here on Earth.

The rest of us better go back to our slave shacks and accept what Massa Bobert tells us, regardless of what we see, hear, or think.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

Oh, and by the way, Dan - the person most addicted to name-calling is Bruce himself, as is obvious in almost all of his posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:28 PM

The Defense was saying that they were going to claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman.




"And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this:

"I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him."


This shows MARTIN's intent, and is certainly evidence that the Defense would be entitled to.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM

Bruce is indeed entitled to his own opinion, Dan, however perverse and unreasonable and unsupported by fact and/or logic that opinion may be.

But he is not entitled to his own facts, as someone once said.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:22 PM

Tricky Dickie,

Did you read my example of what MIGHT have been on the phone that would have been evidence?

If so, how can you ask your question- I established how the text could have supported the Defense claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

If not, you have no right to make your comment, and have shown yourself to be a total asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:15 PM

Just a perfect example of never ever ever ever get yourself in any situation that you have to defend yourself, both wrong .. either one could have run away.

You fight, you defend when attacked but only and I mean only if there are no options. With all of my training in hand to hand or with firearms or sharp edged weapons. I am not afraid to run .. hell that is my first and foremost option. Defend only when absolutely necessary, was any of this necessary ... NO

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:12 PM

Juicy Brucie - if what you say Zimmerman said was what Zimmerman really said, does that not make it wholly clear that the contents of Martin's phone (about which Zimmerman could not possibly have known) could absolutely not have been evidence relevant to Zimmerman's state of mind at the time of the shooting?

The only purpose of releasing the information is to prejudice against the victim of the shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:54 AM

Look stop bashing Bruce. I cannot condone the actions of Zimmerman. A reasonable man would not have left his car. That is what the law is supposed to be based on reason ability. I also don't condone the actions of Martin. If the testimony is true he should not have confronted Zimmerman. However, deadly force ... No don't get into such situations if you are armed. The law is pretty clear when you are given the responsibility of gun ownership. But Bruce is entitled to have his opinion without the name calling don't you think

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:28 AM

Another fucking lie noted:

"
This comment was studiously ignored by Bruce!

Don T."



"
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:23 AM

TO REPEAT:

Since Bobert continues...




Bobert,

I gave you a scenario where the TEXTS would be significant, and you keep going on about the PHOTOS. BOTH were withheld- Are you trying to get around the fact that I answered your question???

Or are you just being an asshole on general principles, as your racist friend Greggie is?"



Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:37 AM

Bobert,

YOU have never acknowledged, or discusses the strength of MY comment. Do I have to repeat it another time??? Have you forgotten it? Are you just ignoring anything you don't agree with?

I gave you a sample text that WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE that could have been on the phone, and withheld by the prosecution - Yet you keep on about pictures? Why? YOUR posting as if I had not answered your request, WHICH I DID, is being an asshole.

If you don't want to be considered an asshole, stop acting like one.




Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM

From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM

And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this:

"I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him."

Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants.




I had commented on that very point- that it was not the photos, of whatever age, but the text messages that could have supported the defense allegation that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Yet you bigoted, racist assholes keep repeating lies, and ignore the evidence presented at the trial.

Greggie boy really does represent the majority of liberals here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:02 AM

I note that the Zimmerman Haters have not made one comment about the evidence presented at the trial. I guess their lynching is being threatened- though I am sure Bobert and his racist Greggie boy are looking for the tree- since they have the rope ready and waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 10:56 AM

My apologies, all. I appear to have provoked yet another bout of bloody bloggy Beardy postarrhoea.

Perhaps a change in his diet would be helpful, it the paregoric isn't working.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM

"Serino, who unsuccessfully recommended that manslaughter charges be filed against Zimmerman soon after the shooting, said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped.

"Thank God," Zimmerman replied.

Serino said based on his response he thought Zimmerman was either a pathological liar or telling the truth, but concluded that Zimmerman truly wished the incident was videotaped. The shooting, however, really wasn't taped.
"
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-recalled-trayvon-martin-gosh/story?id=19543886#.UdLk4RZ1CS1

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM

ANd as for what the posters here "Know" about the cue:


On Monday, CNN showed George Zimmerman's Social Security number and other personal information live over the air, including address, date of birth, and phone number.
Officer Doris Singleton was testifying when the prosecutors showed a narrative report including Zimmerman's information.
That immediately launched a round of tweets by Zimmerman haters celebrating knowledge of that information.
This is hardly the first time Zimmerman's personal information has been distributed by those who oppose him. During the initial coverage of the Zimmerman trial, Spike Lee retweeted the home address of what he thought was Zimmerman's home address. It turned out to be the wrong address. Roseanne Barr then tweeted Zimmerman's parents' home address. "If Zimmerman isn't arrested I'll rt his address again. maybe go 2 his house myself," Barr tweeted.
This isn't the first element of media bias in the Zimmerman case, either. The Associated Press originally reported that Zimmerman was white. That falsehood was repeated for days by the media, heightening the racial aspect of the case.
The media also broadcast photographs of Zimmerman from a 2005 arrest rather than current photos, and conversely broadcast photographs of Martin as a pre-teen, not the 17-year-old he was at the time of the killing (the media's photographic choices actually impacted witness testimony during the trial).
NBC News manipulated tape of Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem that Zimmerman had targeted Martin because he was black, rather than responding to 911 dispatcher questions. CNN also isolated audio of Zimmerman purportedly calling Martin a racial slur during the call -- an allegation that ended up being completely false.
Both ABC News and NBC News also alleged that Zimmerman's injuries did not exist, releasing badly-pixellated photographs from the night of the incident. As trial testimony has shown, Zimmerman was indeed injured during the incident with Martin.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/01/CNN-broadcasts-Zimmerman-social-security




So, Bobert, if you can't lynch Zimmerman, maybe you can join in burning out his parents.


But make sure you ignore any evidence that he acted just like you would have...

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

"Jurors today heard George Zimmerman's account in his own words of his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin as prosecutors played a dramatic audio tape of Zimmerman being questioned by police shortly after the shooting.

Zimmerman is heard telling a police officer how he saw Martin walking through his Sanford, Fla. neighborhood on a dark, rainy Feb. 2012 night. As a neighborhood watchman he tried to follow him in his car because there had been a series of break-ins in the gated community.



Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, got out of his car to call police and was walking back to his vehicle when the 17-year-old attacked him.

"He jumped out of the bushes and he said 'What the f..k is your problem, homie?'" Zimmerman said on the tape.

"And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said 'I don't have a problem.' And he goes, 'No, now you have a problem,' and he punched me in the nose."

In court, jurors listened closely to the tape, while Zimmerman showed no emotion and Martin's father closed his eyes from time to time.

Zimmerman told police he fell down to the ground after being punched repeatedly. "I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face, and I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe."

"He puts his hand on my nose and mouth, and he says 'You are going to die tonight.'

He said "the suspect" was "mounted on top of me" and began to bang his head onto the ground.

"As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him," Zimmerman said.

He said Martin fell backward. "And he's like 'Alright, you got me, you got me.'"

Under questioning, Officer Doris Singleton, who conducted the audio interview, said Zimmerman appeared shocked when he learned Martin's wound was fatal.

"He's dead!?" she quoted him as saying.

"I thought you knew that," she said she replied.

Zimmerman "kinda slung his head and shook it," she said.

Jurors were also shown a second interview, this one videotaped by police a day after the slaying. In this version, Zimmerman re-enacted the confrontation and added that he pulled out his gun "after he hit my head against the concrete several times.""

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/describes_jumped_confrontation_trayvon_I5bI2yMehibUIdCyF6XT8H?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&utm



And

"Zimmerman told the police officer that he lost track of Martin and got out of his truck to look for a street name he could relay to police dispatcher. When the dispatcher suggested Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman started to head back to his vehicle. At that point, Zimmerman said Martin jumped out of some bushes, punched him and he fell to the ground.

Zimmerman said that Martin began hitting his head against the sidewalk as Zimmerman yelled for help and that Martin told him, "You're going to die tonight."

With Zimmerman's shirt and jacket pushed up during the struggle and his holstered gun now visible, he thought Martin was reaching for his firearm holstered around his waist. Zimmerman told the officer that he shot Martin and the teen said, "You got me."

In a written statement, Singleton read in court, Zimmerman refers to Martin as "the suspect." Singleton said it didn't appear that Zimmerman showed any anger when talking about the teen. Prosecutors must show that Zimmerman acted with ill will or a depraved mind in order to get a second-degree murder conviction.

Singleton recounted that Zimmerman noticed a cross she was wearing and said: "In Catholic religion, it's always wrong to kill someone."

The officer responded, "If what you're telling me is true, I don't think that what God meant was that you couldn't save your own life."

Zimmerman also acted surprised when Singleton told him Martin was dead.

"He's dead?!" Singleton recalled Zimmerman saying, before he lowered his head toward the table in the interrogation room.

Jurors also heard from the lead detective in the case, Officer Chris Serino, who asked him several pointed questions about whether the teenager could have felt threatened because Zimmerman was following him."


http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/zimmerman-to-officer-in-catholic-religion-its-always-wrong-to-kill-someone/

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM

And shame on Beardy as a Florida Apologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:33 AM

Thank you, DonT, for re-posting Richard's well reasoned legal opinion on the stuff in Martin's cell phone... As difficult as it is for the folks who see Zimmerman as some folk hero for gunning down a black kid there is no way in hell that Zimmerman could have known what was in Martin's phone or how that gave Zimmerman some reason to murder Martin...

This is beyond debate for rational thinking people... And this is why I no longer respond to people who can't even get that far in their reasoning... One cannot discuss, reason or debate anything with people who, frankly, are irrational...

And, yes, the prosecutors are just going thru the motions here... Reminds me of the time when I took a neighbor to court for shooting his gun irresponsibly and rounds were flying over my head while I worked in my own garden... About 3 minutes into that trial I knew that the prosecutor saw the case as some gun-rights thing and was bungling the hell out of it... I was whispering to the prosecutor things that he should be doing and saying but the prosecutor was ignoring me... Then it looked as if the judge was about to dismiss when I jumped up and took over the prosecution, approached the bench and told the judge in no uncertain terms that if he dismissed the case then he was "going to turn my property into my neighbor's one man war zone" and that it would be on him (the judge) "if anyone got shot"... That's what the real prosecutor should have done... The judge, BTW, continued the case which kept my neighbor playing nice and not shooting at us...

The Zimmerman prosecutor ain't much better than the bozo that was appointed to my case...

This is a kangaroo court... Worse than the O.J. court... Worse than any I've seen... Shame on Florida... Shame on the South... Shame, shame, shame...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 08:35 AM

Don F,

In your post of 1 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM you state three times that "The police" told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. I have previously provided references and quotes from the trial where a witness stated that the 911 operator, who talked to Zimmerman and told him not to follow the suspect, did not have the right to give Zimmerman orders.





From pdq-


Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:00 PM

"...he was legally bound to avoid the situation as the police ordered him to stand down..."

Zimmerman said he was following the suspect and the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that."

First, that is a suggestion, not an order to "stand down".

Second, it came from the dispatcher (not a cop) who has no authority to order a civilian to do anything. Besides, Zimmerman was the authorized neighborhood watchman at that time.





My post- 26 Jun 13 - 08:28 AM

"
Already proven that one of Bobert's standard lies is just that- the "Police told him not to follow" line. It was the 911 operator:

"According to another witness, a 911 operator, it is not within the purview of 911 operators to give orders to callers."
"

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 08:07 AM

Don T,

When asked by Bobert, I supplied a scenario where the phone TEXT messages might be significant evidence. He never bothered to comment on that. Why do you insist on talking about only the photos? Is your argument so weak that you must resort to using that sort of tactic?

As for whether this will be a fair trial, I expect that the jury will be directed to convict Zimmerman "for the public good" to prevent social reaction, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

If the trail would have been unfair had the defendant been black, then that would have been wrong. Obviously.

But to use that as an excuse to prevent a fair trial for this defendant is also wrong.


In ANY case, if one reverses the races of the individuals involved, and comes to a different conclusion, then one is a racist. Period. Too many here have demonstrated that that is what they are,

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 07:55 AM

Yup. The fix is in for Zimmerman to walk. Shame, shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM

So, why not let the jury decide?
Why withhold anything from the defence?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 06:03 AM

Here it is!

""Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM

Bah. Why don't people look shit up. From Cornell University: -

"Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and:

(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;

(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or

(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant".



So in the present case the key question is whether the item is material to preparing the defence. While the material MIGHT be evidential of Martin's character, it seems to me that that what may be in issue (that is not the same thing as what will necessarily be in issue) is what Zimmerman reasonably believed Martin's intentions to be that night. It is very hard indeed to see how month-old photos that Zimmerman had never seen could influence Zimmerman's belief on that night.

It looks to me therefore as if the photos were not discoverable.""

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:51 AM

Richard Bridge, who is a well respected UK lawyer, took the trouble to research the disclosure rules in the USA.

Based upon the results of that research, he gave the opinion that the pictures on Trayvon Martin's phone which were the basis of the defence complaint did not fall within the realms of necessary disclosure under US LAW!

This comment was studiously ignored by Bruce!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:40 AM

""This entire thread is about the ILLEGAL withholding BY the Prosecution of evidence, contrary to US law.""

You made the comment Bruce, that you would not take race into account, so how about a response to my question:
"They, absent the public outcry, were not even going to arrest the killer, let alone try him.

Can you, hand on on heart, say that you believe that would have been their reaction had the races been reversed as per your earlier comment?"
____________________________________________________________________

""Bobert thinks that is just fine as long as they string Zimmerman up. Do you agree with him, or with the goal of a fair trail, under the law, that will not be thrown out for procedural errors, regardless of the final verdict?""

I agree with you, that anybody accused of a crime should have a fair trial!

Bobert thinks this trial will be anything but fair, and I regret that I must agree with that.

The whole procedure from the time of the killing has been handled by the authorities as though Zimmerman were some kind of local superhero, fighting crime on the streets, and their foot dragging over the arrest shows clearly that they didn't want any arraignment or trial.

The prosecution too is seemingly making a complete dogs breakfast of the trial.

The only logical conclusion, as far as I can see, is that the trial has already been held and the fix is in for Zimmerman to walk.

If he had killed a white man, he would have been the Hispanic murderer, but it was only a black kid, so who cares?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:28 AM

Huh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:22 AM

And I was about to say that if any should oppose Don, come back in the next decade and ask us what we think then. Ain't gonna be any different.

Shut up and go to sleep Don. I never was into crystal meth. Why are you still up?

Am I am laughing? Seriously? Get out of town! The world is full of dumb fucks. Let us strive not to be one of them,

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:47 PM

Roger that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:35 PM

The difference between Paladin and Zimmerman. Paladin wasn't just trigger-happy, he made certain he knew what he was doing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:28 PM

Yeah, Don, but Paladin was more often than not on the right side of things- he did have a pretty good moral code.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:14 PM

Def.

"Those assholes always get away" - eh?