 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:01 PM A former neighbor of George Zimmerman testified Wednesday that she heard a boy's cry for help shortly before hearing the firing of a gun. But Jayne Surdyka also testified on the third day of testimony in Zimmerman's murder trial that she heard multiple gunshots: "pop, pop, pop." Only one shot was fired in the fatal encounter between Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. "I truly believe the second yell for help was a yelp," said Surdyka, who later dabbed away tears as prosecutors played her 911 call. "It was excruciating. I really felt it was a boy's voice." Surdyka told the court that before the shooting, she heard an aggressive voice and a softer voice exchanging words for several minutes. "It was someone being very aggressive and angry at someone," she said. During the struggle, she said, she saw a person in dark clothes on top of the other person. Martin was wearing a dark sweatshirt and Zimmerman wore red clothing. Surdyka said she saw the person who was on top get off the body after the shot was fired. During cross-examination, defense attorney Don West tried to show there was a lapse in what Surdyka saw. Defense attorneys contend Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the struggle, but after the neighborhood watch volunteer fired a shot, Zimmerman got on top of Martin. West also challenged Surdyka about her belief that the cry for help was a boy's voice, saying she was making an assumption about whose voice it was. Another neighbor, Jeannee Manalo, testified after Surdyka that she believed Zimmerman was on top of Martin. Manalo also described hearing howling, but she couldn't tell who it was coming from. Under cross-examination, defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked why she had never mentioned her belief that Zimmerman was on top in previous police interviews. He made her read back a transcript of an interview in which she described only seeing shadows." Note: "During the struggle, she said, she saw a person in dark clothes on top of the other person. Martin was wearing a dark sweatshirt and Zimmerman wore red clothing. Surdyka said she saw the person who was on top get off the body after the shot was fired." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:16 PM Bobert: "The judge is already screwing around with the prosecution's case..." "Seems as if the judge has yet another opportunity to stick it to Martin and the prosecution today as police tapes of Zimmerman made prior to the murder indicating Zimmerman's focus on black males being in the neighborhood may not be admissible??? Real world: "Also Wednesday, Judge Debra Nelson ruled that she would allow at trial five police dispatch calls Zimmerman made in the months prior to his encounter with Martin. Prosecutors want to use the calls to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager. Prosecutors played the calls for the judge Tuesday with the jurors out of the courtroom. The recordings show Zimmerman's "ill will," prosecutor Richard Mantei said. "It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin," he said." Of course, Real World facts have no bearing on this case- after all, in the Real World, with a fair trial Zimmerman might not be convicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM When it comes to sanity there ain't gonna be too much of that with this trial... The judge is already screwing around with the prosecution's case... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:45 PM "She said it was suspicious that a person was walking in the rain..." That is completely insane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:31 AM Greg, Remind bb that I don't read his posts anymore... His irrational thinking isn't worth my time... Thanks, B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:15 AM "Seems as if the judge has yet another opportunity to stick it to Martin and the prosecution today as police tapes of Zimmerman made prior to the murder indicating Zimmerman's focus on black males being in the neighborhood may not be admissible??? Huh??? Yup, Zimmerman had a history of calling the police when he saw black males in the neighborhood... Not evidence??? I would think the jury has a right to know of those calls..." So did the judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:13 AM Bobert: "Also Wednesday, Judge Debra Nelson ruled that she would allow at trial five police dispatch calls Zimmerman made in the months prior to his encounter with Martin. Prosecutors want to use the calls to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager. Prosecutors played the calls for the judge Tuesday with the jurors out of the courtroom. The recordings show Zimmerman's "ill will," prosecutor Richard Mantei said. "It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin," he said. O'Mara argued that the calls were irrelevant and that nothing matters but the seven or eight minutes before Zimmerman fired the deadly shot into Martin's chest. In the calls, Zimmerman identifies himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer and recounts that his neighborhood has had a rash of recent break-ins. In one call, he asks that officers respond quickly since the suspects "typically get away quickly." In another, he describes suspicious black men hanging around a garage and mentions his neighborhood had a recent garage break-in. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:18 AM Bobert, From your comments, you are still only interested in finding Zimmerman guilty and punishing him for all the past injustices of the system- regardless of his guilt or innocence. I am interested in finding out the truth. Sort of like having justice, instead of a lynching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:59 AM Well, well, well... Seems as if the judge has yet another opportunity to stick it to Martin and the prosecution today as police tapes of Zimmerman made prior to the murder indicating Zimmerman's focus on black males being in the neighborhood may not be admissible??? Huh??? Yup, Zimmerman had a history of calling the police when he saw black males in the neighborhood... Not evidence??? I would think the jury has a right to know of those calls... We'll see... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:47 AM Wendy Dorival, who trained Zimmerman in his duties as the watch representative for his gated community, described him as "a little meek" and someone who wanted to "make changes in his community to make it better." Although a PowerPoint slide as part of Dorival's orientation presentation declared citizens are "NOT the vigilante police," she told defense attorney Don West that seeing an unknown or suspicious person walking around in the rain or on a pathway not meant for walking would be grounds for calling the police department's nonemergency number. That testimony could assist the defense in painting Zimmerman as someone who was simply carrying out his neighborhood watch duties rather than hunting down an unarmed teenager. The defense's case was further strengthened by testimony that there had been burglaries in Zimmerman's community, including one in which a home was entered while a mother of a small child was upstairs. "She was alone," Dorival said. "It was terrifying for her. She was still shaken up by it. It seemed very fresh to her." Dorival testified that residents who had an issue "were directed to call Mr. Zimmerman." Perhaps just as significantly, Dorival came to Zimmerman with the idea of assuming greater duty in community policing. Asked why, Dorival said it was because of Zimmerman's "demeanor" and "his high interest in being part of a Sanford community." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/haunting-photos-unexpected-witness-defense-day-2-zimmerman-214809362.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:28 AM "Meanwhile, defense attorney Mark O'Mara cross-examined Wendy Dorival, who served as volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department. Dorival stated that neighborhood watch volunteers were not supposed to follow suspects, but added that she thought Zimmerman was a professional person, and had tried to recruit him to a citizens patrol program. She said that it was suspicious that a person – Trayvon Martin – was walking in the rain between houses without a particular purpose.' And these are the Prosecution's witnesses. 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: Greg F. Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:15 AM Necrophilia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:53 AM Didn't one of the first people to reach the scene say that Zimmerman was astride Martin's chest with Martin on his back? If you were underneath someone, having your head bashed in, and you shot him, you would push him off and get up. Why would you turn him over and kneel astride the body? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: bobad Date: 22 Jun 13 - 03:45 PM Also from the same link: "On Friday, the judge also dismissed a defense motion to bar certain words and phrases from the prosecution's opening statement. She ruled prosecutors could allege that Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, "profiled" Martin but ordered them not to use the term "racial profiling." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 22 Jun 13 - 03:42 PM Like I have pointed out: So much for ***Martin*** getting a fair trial... Welcome to the South, folks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: bobad Date: 22 Jun 13 - 03:32 PM "The judge in the George Zimmerman trial has ruled that two voice identification experts who suggested that unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin screamed for help before he was shot and killed by Zimmerman will not be allowed to testify at the trial." Judge blocks audio expert testimony in Trayvon Martin case |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:14 PM Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:41 PM and from Bobert: "Unless you are capable and willing to look beyond *your* side then you are allready in the loser category in my book. I mean no disrespect here but life isn't about winning law suits but being able to find common ground or selling visions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 13 - 01:10 PM Yeah, like I have pointed out, Don... It was Zimmerman who ignored the police's instruction to remain in his vehicle... Had he done that then Martin would be alive today... All this talk of lynching of Zimmerman is the sickest of sick thinking... The only lynching that has occurred was done by Zimmerman with a handgun... Lets also look at the builds of these two people... Zimmerman is a pretty beefy dude... Martin was a skinny kid... Skinny kids generally don't go attacking guys who out weigh them by 50 or so pounds... I mean, I understand exactly what Zimmerman's attorney is up to... It's trickery and it's part of his job but it's also the job of the judge to try to have a fair trial and unless the judge is willing to put a gag order out there then this is going to be O.J., Part 2... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM The claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman's story. I saw rwo mug shots of Zimmerman, the first of which was a straight mug shot, the second of which was the same mug shot, but it had been photoshopped to make it look like he was covered with blood. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? I don't think so! That was Zimmerman's excuse for killing Martin. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM Pretty limp-dick response, Beardy. Where's your usual verbosity & rapier-like wit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 11:00 AM "What is the difference between yourself and an obnoxious, irrational, ignorant, foul-mouther asshole?" That's easy- I am "beardedbruce", not "GregF". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. 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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:44 AM And you, being "Right," would string Zimmerman up . So what is the difference between you and the Klan? The color of your sheet? The fact "You" know you are right and they are "Wrong"? You are correct in that one cannot argue with an irrational person. Maybe you should look i the mirror sometime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:30 AM Sorry, bruce, but I'm right and you are wrong... A thousand more of your posts won't change that... Like a learned clinical psychologist once told me when I was a socail worker, "You can't argue with irrational people"... He was right... You can spin out a thousand more irrational/illogical posts but... ...I'm done with you... Bye... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:15 AM Wrong, Bobert. Try to learn what a conditional is, someday. I gave a set of scenarios that the Defense has stated it will be using, thus justifying the phone information as evidence. Any further "judgement" should be done by the ++Judge++ and not the prosecution, as ++You++ have stated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:04 AM Yes, you have tried to explain... The problem is that your logic is badly flawed as you are having to invent scenarios that do not relate to the case... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:43 AM Bobert, I have tried to explain, but you refuse to address the issues. Your failure to comprehend simple conditionals is not my problem. Your failure to understand that a trial is to determine guilt, not rubber-stamp public opinion ++is++ of concern to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:34 AM Your logic escapes reason, bb... Guess better... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:08 AM I repeat, Bobert: OK, I meet you on the street, and ++You++ say "What are you doing here?" I take this as an attack, and start beating your head against the ground. You shoot me (after getting your head pounded) ++You++ as the instigator are guilty of murder? You have stated that you, as the instigator, are guilty of at least 2nd degree murder. You have never answered any of my questions, nor acknowledged that I did provide an example of possible evidence that could be on the phone. You have made a presumption of guilt on this, denying the basic tenant of American Justice that innocence is presumed, and the prosecution has to prove otherwise. What can I say but that you are advocating a lynching to enforce your view of what happened? Where do you come off any different from the KKK, or other racist groups? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:47 PM Yup, Don... That's the case at hand... BB wants to make it about Zimmerman being lynched or not getting a fair trial... What a bunch of baloney... Zimmerman's attorney is already getting away with stuff that most reasonable and non-partisan judges would have stopped immediately which does not bode well for justice being served here... Shaping up like O.J., Part II... The point that Martin doesn't get an appeal seems to have shot right over bb's head... It's Martin who isn't going to get a fair trial... As for the lynching... Black kid with hoodie??? He got a 9mm lynching... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:35 PM I once had a friend—a guitar student of mine—who was also a gun enthusiast. I joined him a number of times at the firing range, bought myself a target pistol, and thorough enjoyed popping holes in paper at 25 yards. But my friend carried a Colt .45 automatic with him at all times. He had a concealed weapons permit, and he was never without the pistol. His wife told me that he even slept with it on the bedside table. There were a number of incidents. One night he very nearly shot a mutual friend approaching him whom he did not immediately recognize. Out with the .45 and drew a bead on Buzz's chest and was about to pull the trigger when he suddenly realized who it was. Another time, he whipped out the .45 and took aim at someone trying to flee from a hit-and-run accident and got himself arrested by the police, who already had the situation in hand. My friend (ex-friend—I came to the conclusion that he was just too damned dangerous to be around—and his wife divorced him after a couple of years of marriage) was arrested by the police and his gun was confiscated. And his concealed weapons permit was rescinded for a three month period. He was told by the judge, in no uncertain terms, that the hit-and-run accident did not justify the use of lethal force. So I know this kind of person. They have a gun, they fancy themselves Defenders of Law and Order—and they are itching to shoot someone!!. A black teen-ager, walking in the evening, wearing a "hoody," and carrying "something" in his hand (a box of candy he had just purchase at a convenience store), and Zimmerman assumed was casing the neighborhood, was just too big a temptation! The police told him to cool it, but he went ahead anyway. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM If I were your lawyer I would quit, since you don't listen to what I said. The scenario I presented is what the defense in this case is presenting, and thus is significant in terms of the allowable evidence- ++If++ there were texts that indicated that Martin would attack someone who tried to stop him, hat would support the Defense claim that Zimmerman was attacked. OK, have it your way- violate Zimmerman's rights, convict him in a mock trial, and have him get off for the mistrial. Then ++You++ can take credit for the (many) deaths and destruction from the riots after the "miscarriage" of justice. Since that is what ++you++ want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM This case isn't an "Okay, I meet you on the street" case, bruce... This is a case where the victim was stalked and confronted... That is a major difference... The facts of the case as we know them are that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with a gun and confronted the victim... That isn't at all the scenario that you have just presented... Your scenario has nothing to do with the realities of this case... I mean, your posts are like spin on crack cocaine... If you were my lawyer I'd fire you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM In the UK one is allowed to use reasonable force in self defence. Shooting an unarmed man might well not count. I have explained this above. The US belief that resort to a firearm is socially normative is out of whack by many other countries' standards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:24 PM "If the conflict was initiated by Zimmerman then nothing that followed absolves Zimmerman from liability... Once Zimmerman made the initial contact, which BTW is not in dispute, then Martin had every right to defend himslef..." OK, I meet you on the street, and ++You++ say "What are you doing here?" I take this as an attack, and start beating your head against the ground. You shoot me- ++You++ as the instigator are guilty of murder? That is what you are saying |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 12:52 PM 1. There are national standards for neighborhood watches, bruce... The operative word in neighborhood watch is, ahhhhh, watch... That is the backbone of the program everywhere... The difference between a neighborhood watch program and armed security is night and day... Armed security are people who have specific training in weapons... If you can find one neighborhood watch group that arms untrained watchers please feel free to offer up your source... If not, then this argument of yours is null and void... 2. We agree but if Martin (the victim) gets a fair trial, Zimmerman has to be convicted of, at the very least, wrongful death... 3. There is a name for someone, other than a law enforcement officer, who gets out of his car with a gun because he is suspicious... It's called vigilante... 4. You miss the point yet again... If the conflict was initiated by Zimmerman then nothing that followed absolves Zimmerman from liability... Once Zimmerman made the initial contact, which BTW is not in dispute, then Martin had every right to defend himslef... Bottom line, Part 649: The only way that anything that was on Martin's cell phone that could be relevant to this case would have to involved this case... Since Martin and Zimmerman didn't know one another at the time of the "encounter" there can be nothing on that phone that can be used as "evidence"... Zimmerman's attorney knows this yet he has used the media to try to poison the jury pool... The judge is negligent and derelict here in not imposing a gag order... And, yes, I do know quite a bit of law... When I was in business I had the opportunity to represent my company in court well over 20 times against "real lawyers" and in all but one of those cases won the rest of them... Got to where the "real lawyers", most of whom I knew personally, would try to settle rather than litigate... No brag, just fact... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM Bobert, "1. As a neighborhood watch person Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed... That has been reported by a member of a nation citizen's watch association..." Standards differ in various areas. I do not know the Florida standards- Do you? "2. Zimmerman had a criminal history involving violence and perhaps shouldn't have been allowed to be a neighborhood watch person to begin with..." I ++agree++. That does not make him guilty of murder. "3. You are wrong as wrong can be, bb about the instigation... Zimmerman has never denied that he got out of of his vehicle... Nor has he denied that he approached Martin... Nor has he denied that he had a gun... This is just simple "common sense" to anyone who has any common sense... Perhaps you don't get it but it is common sense... Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his vehicle (the police told him to stay in his vehicle) then there wouldn't have been a murder... That is plain as day and night... That makes Zimmerman the instigator.. So, If I am in a bad area, and the operator tells me to stay in my car, and I get out because I see suspicious people, ++I++ am the instigator if one of them kills me? "4. Again, Martin had a right to defend himself against someone who had instigated the conflict... You would, I would and Martin tried..." And you claim Zimmerman did not have that right, ++even++ if he was attacked physically after asking a verbal question??? ++As++ ++I++ ++posted++, the trial is to determine who was at fault- ++Your++ statement as to Zimmerman's guilt is just "noise" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:35 AM I disagree with you, Bobert, and think that a trial judge should determine guilt, not a public opinion poll , and even someone I think is guilty deserves to have a fair trial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:29 AM 1. As a neighborhood watch person Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed... That has been reported by a member of a nation citizen's watch association... 2. Zimmerman had a criminal history involving violence and perhaps shouldn't have been allowed to be a neighborhood watch person to begin with... 3. You are wrong as wrong can be, bb about the instigation... Zimmerman has never denied that he got out of of his vehicle... Nor has he denied that he approached Martin... Nor has he denied that he had a gun... This is just simple "common sense" to anyone who has any common sense... Perhaps you don't get it but it is common sense... Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his vehicle (the police told him to stay in his vehicle) then there wouldn't have been a murder... That is plain as day and night... That makes Zimmerman the instigator... 4. Again, Martin had a right to defend himself against someone who had instigated the conflict... You would, I would and Martin tried... These are the facts of the case... This isn't about what Martin said that isn't related to the case... The only exception would be if Martin knew Zimmerman and made statements that he was going to try to harm Zimmerman... That would be the only exception... That is not that case... No, I'm not spinning at all here, bb... As you will see as this case goes along what I am saying is what the case is about and what you are saying is just... ...noise... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM Cross-posted. Bobert, "Who instigated the conflict, bb??? Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store or... ...Zimmerman who was told by the police to stay in his car??? No spin, dude... Just answer the question..." ++You++ have already spun it like a top. How about Who instigated the conflict, Bobert?? Martin, who was walking around possibly looking to break in, steal stuff, and beat up some white boy, (As ++you++ said, Zimmerman could not know why Martin was there- but could ask) or... ...Zimmerman who was the neighborhood watch in an area with previous breakins, who asked someone he saw why he was there and was physically attacked and having his head beaten into mush????? No spin, dude... Just answer the question... Suppose it had been an older Black preacher and a white skinhead, and the skinhead was killed. ++If++ that makes a difference, ++you++ are the one in the wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:07 AM In any case, it was a tragedy- but lynching a person who might have been defending himself from an attack ++regardless++ of the color of his skin is ++wrong++. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM Who instigated the conflict, bb??? Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store or... ...Zimmerman who was told by the police to stay in his car??? No spin, dude... Just answer the question... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 10:39 AM No, Bobert, *Please* learn to read what is written. " So, bb, stand your ground is fine for Zimmerman but not Martin even thou Martin wasn't armed... C 1. Zimmerman is ++not++ using "Stand Your Ground" He is using self defense, claiming that after confronting Martin ("Hey! What are you doing here?") he (Zimmerman) was attacked ++by++ Martin and was having his (Zimmerman's) head pounded into a bloody pulp. 2. ++If++ you attack me with your fists, and are inflicting bodily harm on me, and I am in fear of my life, I ++will++ shoot you if I have a gun. "Is he not allowed to defend himself???" ++That++ is what the trial is supposed to determine - ++Who++ was attacking and who was defending themselves. Are you stating that Zimmerman was ++not++ allowed to defend himself if he was attacked?? ++If++ Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, Zimmerman is in the wrong. ++If++ Martin physically attacked Zimmerman after a verbal confrontation, ++Martin++ was in the wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:07 AM So, bb, stand your ground is fine for Zimmerman but not Martin even thou Martin wasn't armed... Is he not allowed to defend himself??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:18 AM Zimmerman is going to jail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM Bobert, You state: "Okay, Bruce... Let's say that Martin had said that he was going to check out a house to burglarize and beat the crap out of the owner of the house... Let's also say that he had said this just the night before... Unless Zimmerman knew that this prior to following and murdering Martin why is it relevant... " It would be relevant, because the defense has stated that it is using self-defense as it's plea. The "fact" that Martin had stated he would attack "anyone who tried to stop him" would strengthen the defense claim that Trevor *did* attack Zimmerman, and support the plea of self defense. Otherwise, it is entirely Zimmerman's word. The present defense story is that Zimmerman followed Martin ( a mistake in my opinion, but he had his reasons) and confronted him. Zimmerman then claims he was attacked by Martin, and was having his head beaten against the ground. In self-defense, Zimmerman shot Martin. I *do* *not* *know* the truth of this story- and neither do you. But to deny Zimmerman his rights to a fair trial because of past injustices in the legal system is wrong, as wrong as lynching someone because of his skin color. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:22 AM Well, Don that is not what the words I provided from a respected US university say is the US law. Not that anyone here seemed to notice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:15 AM ""Bobert is just a soled out Democrat. He doesn't get past their 'talking points',"" Goofus, FFS get off your political hobbyhorse. This thread is about a specific court case, so keep the political claptrap for the political threads you so love to destroy. Don T. |
