BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 01:23 PM

GUEST:

It hasn't been all that long (1979) since the KKK gunned down 5 peaceful civil rights demonstrators in Greensboro, NC... This happened on broad day light in front of hundreds of witnesses... No charges were ever brought...

Normal...

These KKk'ers were not all that different than what we are seeing from the Zimmerman worshipers here and elsewhere...

S.S.D.D....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 01:58 PM

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The six female jurors who will determine whether George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year could begin deliberating as early as Friday.

During almost three weeks of testimony, they have listened to 56 witnesses — 38 for the prosecution and 18 for the defense. A number of items have been the source of conflicting testimony, and jurors will have to sort out those contradictions once they get in the deliberation room.

Zimmerman is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder. He claims he fatally shot Martin in a scuffle at the townhome complex where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer and where Martin was visiting his father's fiancee. Martin was black and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Some civil rights activists argued that the delay in charging Zimmerman was influenced by Martin's race, and protests were held around the nation in the 44 days before Zimmerman was arrested.

Here are five questions jurors will have to sort out.

___

WHOSE SCREAMS ARE ON 911 CALLS?

Convincing jurors about whose voice is screaming for help on 911 calls that captured audio of the fight has become the primary goal of prosecutors and defense attorneys. Martin's mother, father and brother testified it's the Miami teen screaming for help on recordings of the 911 calls made by Zimmerman's neighbors. Zimmerman's mother, uncle, father and five friends told jurors it was the neighborhood watch volunteer's voice. One of Zimmerman's neighbors, Jayne Surdyka, says the screams were those of a boy.

___

WHO WAS ON TOP?

Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket and Martin had on a dark hoodie. Zimmerman's former neighbor Jonathan Good, perhaps the witness with the best view of what happened, says he saw a person in dark clothing straddling someone in red or white clothing and making downward movements with his fists in a mixed-martial arts maneuver known as "ground and pound." Neighbors Selma Mora and Surdyka say the person on top got up after the shooting. Zimmerman's attorneys claim Zimmerman had been on the bottom but got on top of Martin after he fired his gun.

___

HOW DID POSITION OF MARTIN'S ARMS CHANGE?

Zimmerman told investigators that Martin was on top of him, pounding his head into the pavement. After he fired his gun, he says, he got on top of Martin and spread his arms. However, a photo taken moments later by Zimmerman's neighbor shows Martin's arms under his body. Defense expert Vincent DiMaio testified Martin could have moved his arms in the 10 to 15 seconds he would have been conscious after being shot in the heart.

___

DID ZIMMERMAN ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE?

Zimmerman has argued all along he acted in self-defense, although he passed up chance for a self-defense "stand your ground" hearing in which a judge could have thrown out the case without it going to a jury if the judge was convinced there was enough evidence to support it. Zimmerman's community college instructor, Alexis Francisco Carter, told jurors that a person can claim self-defense if they have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Jurors will get further instructions on self-defense from the judge.

___

DID ZIMMERMAN ACT WITH ILL WILL, HATRED, SPITE OR EVIL INTENT?

In order to get a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors must show that Zimmerman acted with ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. Prosecutors have argued that profanities Zimmerman uttered under his breath while he watched Martin walk through his neighborhood were evidence of ill will and hatred. But when asked by prosecutors and defense attorneys, no witness said Zimmerman acted with these traits.



http://news.yahoo.com/questions-jurors-must-consider-zimmerman-trial-230257024.html

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 02:09 PM

"White Hispanics," "Creepy-Ass Crackers," "Teenage Mammies," and "Suspicious A--holes who always get away" -- that is the vernacular of the George Zimmerman trial.
George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public's mind as a racist.
NBC edited a tape of Zimmerman's call to police as he was following Martin to make him appear to be focused on Martin's race.
The New York Times has referred to him in unique racial terms as a "white Hispanic." The terminology was necessary to have the story fit into a well-worn news narrative throughout American history from the Scottsboro Boys to Emmett Till to Rodney King – the black victim of white racism. Hispanic people can be as racist as black or white people in a country with a deep history of racism. But, apparently for the Times, Zimmerman's whiteness was important. It fit their good versus evil tale of a white racist killing an innocent black man.
The media is clearly guilty of playing on the most primitive racial divisions in our society to fuel racial animosity and boost ratings.
In June, before the trial started, a CNN poll asked Americans if they believed the murder charges against Zimmerman were true or false. Without any courtroom testimony or evidence, but based on the racially charged media coverage, 62 percent of Americans said the charges were "probably true" or "definitely true."
My bet is that poll would have different results today. The trial has failed to prove Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind" – as required for a second-degree murder conviction – or even with a racist mind. He certainly killed Martin. And the jury may decide he is guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But what we heard in the courtroom fits with an FBI report that found race was not a factor in Martin's shooting death.
The strong public judgment of Zimmerman's guilt in the poll reflected a racially weighted media telling of the story. Photos of a bloodied Zimmerman after the incident, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and the police decision not to charge Zimmerman all got a dismissive glance from the press and contributed to public assumptions about Zimmerman before the trial.
Liberal and conservative news TV and radio have played to the racial theme, too. The left, notably Rev. Al Sharpton, have made the case a crusade for racial justice. The right-wing media, especially talk radio, has responded by making Zimmerman a hero. In fact, Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, created an online site that attracted more than $145,000 from people who somehow made Zimmerman into their champion, possibly their great white hero.
The national focus on race in this case hit a high point when Rachel Jeantel, a 19-year-old student, testified that she spoke with Martin just before he was killed. Jeantel, Martin's friend, told the court that Martin complained that a "man was just watching him." And Martin described this man, Jeantel said, as a "creepy, white, excuse my language, cracker --- creepy-ass cracker."
Jeantel's testimony set off a stupid debate, requiring total ignorance of slavery and legal segregation, about the equivalence of blacks using "cracker" to describe whites, versus whites using the word "nigger" to describe blacks.
And Jeantel's physical appearance, as a dark, heavyset young woman, speaking with a Southern dialect as she gave the lawyers a lot of attitude with her curt answers, contributed to the racial view of the case.
She became the "teenage mammy," in the words of a sociology professor quoted in the New York Times, caricatured for "not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness."
And now the media, especially conservative talk radio outlets, are fixated on the possibility of race riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. Meanwhile, Twitter and other social media sites are full of threats from angry black people to kill Zimmerman if he is not held accountable by a jury for killing Martin.
Martin, the 17-year-old, is dead. But he has not escaped the racial slander attached to this case. Zimmerman's backers note that Martin had smoked marijuana – as if that is unusual among American teenagers. They seem delighted to find online messages in which he took on a rapper, street-thug persona and posed as a tough guy.
These are all caricatures of two real people caught in a tragedy.

Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 emergency dispatch operator who told him to stop following Martin.
Why did he have a gun if he was simply part of a neighborhood watch program?
He had no basis to suspect Martin of any crime. So why does he describe Martin as "suspicious" to police?
Why does he apparently lump Martin with people he describes as "these a--holes, they always get away."
Why didn't Martin just walk away from Zimmerman?
But Martin is dead. He can't speak for himself and get beyond the box of racial stereotypes the media built for him.
Zimmerman is alive. He has chosen not to speak at his trial, and although the prosecution played an interview he did with Fox News' Sean Hannity, it is still no match for skipping an ideal chance to tell his story when everyone is listening in the courtroom and on television.
Now, no matter what the verdict, he is going to carry his box of racial stereotypes around until his death. His identity will always be as a want-to-be cop who trailed a black kid who was not doing anything wrong, got in a fight with him, pulled out a gun and killed him.
Ultimately, it is the job of the media to give straight, objective coverage of any story.

Whatever the final verdict on Zimmerman, the media is clearly guilty of playing on the most primitive racial divisions in our society to fuel racial animosity and boost ratings.
There are no winners here.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 02:24 PM

As presented at trial:

Zimmerman, 29, says he shot Martin because he feared for his life, and much of the testimony last week could bolster his self-defense claims.

Prosecutors this week are expected to try to show discrepancies in Zimmerman's story. Here's Zimmerman's account, from the interview played in court and a written statement he made:

Zimmerman tried to follow Martin in his car after calling 911.
He left the vehicle to find the direction where the "suspect" went, even though the 911 dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow the teen. Singleton also testified that Zimmerman included the term "suspect" without coaching from her. She never labeled Martin that.

Martin "approached him" and asked, "You got a problem?" Zimmerman said no, and Martin responded, "You do now."

Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, making him fall backward. Martin got on top of him.

Zimmerman yelled for help multiple times, but Martin told him to "shut the f*** up." Martin started smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.

Martin went to grab for Zimmerman's now exposed firearm (Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was armed) and said, "You're gonna die tonight, mothaf*****."
Zimmerman un-bolstered the gun first and shot Martin.
An onlooker told Zimmerman he was going to call the police, but Zimmerman already had.
When the police arrived, Zimmerman placed his hands above his head. When an officer asked who shot Martin, Zimmerman said, "I did."
Two parts of the conversation with Singleton didn't make it onto the recording. Singleton testified that Zimmerman didn't even know Martin had died. When he found out, she said he "slung his head down." According to Singleton, Zimmerman also asked her about her cross, saying "In my religion, it's always a sin to kill somebody."



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmermans-police-statement-2013-7#ixzz2YlKkX5l7


Nothing was presented by the prosecution to indicate any of this did not occur. All the circumstantial evidence supports this set of events, according to the experts who testified.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:19 PM

Thanks, BullshitBruce, for anotherextensive run of blogoshit that has nothing to do with anything.

Attaboy. Keep up the "goode work".

Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:26 PM

A positive step (I guess) is that the judge has ruled that Zimmerman can be convicted of a lesser charge...

I think he should have been charged with 1st degree murder hate crime myself since he profiled Zimmerman...

Given the way the trial has been conducted, however, odds are that he will not pay for this murder in any manner... Well, at least in this court... Maybe in civil court but it's not certain that Martin's parents would have the cash for the level of attorneys that would be required to go up against Zimmerman's donors... Of course, if they were awarded judgement, Zimmerman would go into his rope-a-dope, I-don't-have-any-money routine so it is doubtful if the Martins would ever see a single dime from this creep...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 04:30 PM

Incidentally, it was repeatedly reported that Martin had broken Zimmerman's nose. From the photos, it seems far more likely to me that he simply gave him a bloody nose. I've never had my nose broken but I've had many a bloody nose. Is everything called a "broken nose" nowadays?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:01 PM

And all of the Zimmerman apologists here are conveniently ignoring the fact that IF ZIMMERMAN HAD STAYED IN HIS CAR AS THE POLICE TOLD HIM TO DO, this never would have happened!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:03 PM

I have had my nose broken twice (football, boxing), Eb, and my brother has had his broken once (baseball) and in all three cases both eyes blackened...

Plus, looking at the pics of the back of Zimmerman's head and factoring in the other lies he has been caught telling I'm wondering if he didn't self inflict those wounds on himself because they were so superficial that they didn't require any stitches??? Had someone really pounded his head on concrete the wounds would be a lot more severe and and each one would be accompanied with a big knot, as well...

Doesn't much matter... The trial, if you can call it that, is over and Zimmerman will soon be acquitted of murder...

Who says you can't get away with murder??? Happens every day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:07 PM

Sorry to shout, but everybody who blames Trayvon Martin for his own murder is studiously ignoring the obvious!

Don Firth

P. S. In matters like this, I have a low disgust threshold.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:38 PM

Bobert: "You are one of the most rabid Zimmerman defenders here... Any argument that might implicate your hero is met with reams and reams of rebuttal...

First of all, THE ABOVE is an outright LIE! you're getting as bad as Firth!
Show me a post where I defended Zimmerman!

Now to YOUR 'defense' of opinions, vs evidence...

Bobert: "Here's what we do know to be factual:

1. Zimmerman profiled Martin

Not a crime, and no proof that he did profile him. That is an assumption or opinion, which is not evidence.

2. Zimmerman called police

Not a crime, is it?

3. Zimmerman was told by the police to stay in his vehicle

True, and he should have stayed put..but, going against that advice is not a crime.

4. Zimmerman disobeyed police and got out of his vehicle with a gun

True, but not a crime.

5. Zimmerman followed Martin

True, but not a crime.

6. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin

True, but the circumstances are what the trial is about..if it was self defense, it's not a crime...if it was premeditated, AND PROVABLE, then that is a crime. So far, premeditation has not been proved.

Those events are not in dispute...

BULLSHIT!

Here's the defense's story about the events:

1. Martin attacked Zimmerman - Not likely... See Don T's comments on the size differential...

'Not likely' is what?? an opinion or wishful thinking? It is NOT evidence that was supported by the trial.
"See Don T's comments on the size differential..."
It only matters if he was a witness....so it's not evidence. You say you took martial arts..so did I AND taught it to a Sheriff's department, and two officers from a town within the county..and I got news for you, size matters little in martial arts...and you SHOULD know that!

2. Martin got Zimmerman down on the ground - Not likely... Again, the size differential makes that claim very doubtful

You might be right on that one, Zimmerman laid down and said 'Straddle me, and start slugging me'...and tell the eye-witness to watch!...'Not likely'??? ..then what did the eye-witness see?? Martin on top..You're 'not likely' is also no evidence..it is a very biased opinions, supported by NO ONE but your imagination...not by evidence!

3. Zimmerman was the one who screamed for "help" - Not likely... Someone yelled for "help", a shot was fired a second later and that voice was not heard again...

Except the eye witness said the guy on the bottom was calling and screaming for help!..The recorded calls on the cell phone could not be confirmed by anyone, to be entered into evidence

Here's what else we know:

1. Zimmerman lied in court when he was asked if he had money for his defense...

True...but that is a separate charge, and not relevant to the events leading up to the shooting.

2. Zimmerman lied in court about not having an understanding of Florida's "stand your ground" and "self defense" laws...

True...that's a perjury charge, not a murder charge...TWO different crimes.
(By the way, Holder has done some serious lying under oath too, but you don't seem to mind...and one of those lies led to the deaths of border patrol agents...but it gets a pass from you, right?

Here's where the court (judge) has made serious mistakes:

1. No gag order thus allowing Zimmerman's attorney free shot at poisoning the jury pool...

But President Obama didn't poison anything by saying Martin was like his son??? Shit, even Nixon got a lot of crap about his pre-trial comments about Charles Manson, but again, this president gets a pass, right??

2. Not permitting prosecution to present "expert witnesses" who were well versed in voice recognition technology...

They cancelled each other out, one was for the prosecution, one for the defense...then it turns out there was not enough time on the recording to make a determination, one way or the other...right?

3. Permitting a stream of Zimmerman's friends to testify that the voice on the tape was Zimmerman's...

..and Martins mom said it was Trayvon's...but the dad wasn't so sure, and put reasonable doubt on the mom's testimony. The prosecution opened up that can of worms by calling the mom to the stand FIRST. .in which case, it allows the defense to call theirs to rebut!

Bobert: "That pretty much sums up this case..."


That pretty much sums up this case...

Look, I'm NOT defending Zimmerman...as I've said ALL ALONG, it was acts of stupidity..on both their parts.

All I've done was address YOUR opinions, that are NOT evidence, just opinions, as to the law.
As I've said before. I DO NOT HAVE A PIG IN THIS RACE....my main concern, is that this doesn't spawn any more violence, and especially, any more violence spurred on by you, or anyone emotionalizing it for political leverage....

THAT'S ALL!
I do not want to hear about more whites shooting blacks because of them defending themselves, because some stupid, reckless idiot, whipped them up in a frenzy to attack each other..because those who do, would be an accomplice to whatever crimes comes out of it!

Also, you have not addressed the issue of Holder's DOJ sending people down to train them how to demonstrate.

..as Axelrod said, 'A good crisis is a terrible thing to waste'.

What a fucking shit head!

Care to address reality???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:49 PM

Correction::

It was Rahm Emanuel who said, ""You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Sorry, Axelrod...it was the other dickhead!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 06:38 PM

If I were walking down the street in the evening and someone approached me pointing a gun at me, I think I could safely assume that I was being attacked.

And Zimmerman didn't just go against police advice by getting out of his car and accosting Martin, he was going against their orders. They told him to stay in the car and not approach Martin.

Martin was doing nothing illegal when accosted by Zimmerman, and he had every reason to be frightened of him and try to defend himself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 06:53 PM

So, GfinS... Right after you state that your not a Zimmerman worshiper you go and defend Zimmerman point by point...

Uh huh???

Delusional...

Not quite as bad as the "other guy" but getting there...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:18 PM

Firth: "If I were walking down the street in the evening and someone approached me pointing a gun at me, I think I could safely assume that I was being attacked."

That's probably true...but NOT what happened according to all accounts..so knock it off! Your supposing is NOT evidence, it's only supposing!

Bobert: "So, GfinS... Right after you state that your not a Zimmerman worshiper you go and defend Zimmerman point by point..."

I was NOT defending Zimmerman, and AM NOT defending Zimmerman, I'm only stating what points of the law, as you listed the 'charges'. If you want to 'try' this case, in your mind, you still have to relate to what happened and what didn't..and if you look at this actual case, you have to have ALL the points backed up with admissible evidence, that is substantiated...and though you have circumstantial points, you have to tie them in, with THIS actual case..not by hypotheticals, or emotional 'what ifs'....just by supported facts. What I posted was your accusations, held up to the law...in this case or any other. Nobody has proved or disproved the self defense part, as of yet, except the eye-witness who saw Zimmerman on the bottom, getting punched. How he got there, or what immediately preceded that, is anybody's guess....that being said, you can't convict someone based on a guess....Right?
Hey, if Zimmerman ILLEGALLY provoked this, then he SHOULD go down...but nobody has proven that, have they?

By the way, neither of you have broached my questions/comments on perjury by Holder, and the deaths of the border patrol agents...or Nixon getting blasted for his remarks about Manson, before his trial..what's the matter??..You can't live up to your own double standards????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:27 PM

Hells bells, GfinS...

You have defended Zimmerman at every turn...

You don't have to lie about it...

You and the other guy are the two biggest Zimmerman worshipers here...

Hey, I don't give a rat's ass about it but for you to deny it is like a joke...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:51 PM

Goofball, that is EXACTLY what happened!

That part was clear--UNTIL people like you started trying to muddy the waters.

Now, what possible reason could you have for doing that, usless you have already assuned that Martin was the guilty party here.

And WHY, I wonder, would you do that?

. . . a seventeen-year-old black kid out walking at night must be up to some kind of mischief, right?

Don Firth

P. S. Where do you live? Mississippi? Alabama? Georgia? Where?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 08:25 PM

That's the point I kinda suggested a couple days ago, Don...

GfinS denies everything but is complicit in some pretty racists thinking here... And a double dose of denial...

I mean, you can't go claiming to be this neutral party and then go about trashing the prosecution's arguments...

That is called lying...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Songwronger
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:08 PM

So what's the status on this case? I haven't been following. Will Obama and Bill Ayers get their desired race riots out of it?

Judicial Watch published an interesting article yesterday. They did a Freedom Of Information Act search and learned that the Obama/Holder team sent people to agitate in the case. Federal racial agitation paid for by taxpayers:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in

Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman.

•March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being "deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain."

•March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 "in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.

•March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL "to provide support for protest deployment in Florida."

•March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31."

•April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford."

•April 11 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male."

And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:24 PM

Fuck off, wrong man...

Go back to your cave... Like you said, you haven't been keeping up so why do you feel like you have a right to pollute this thread with your Obama hate???

Start another Obama hate thread while catching up with the facts of this case, dude...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Songwronger
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:30 PM

Fuck you, you drunken sot. All you can do to keep the light off your shame of a president is to fake some care about a dead kid. You're a disgrace. Obama murders dozens or hundreds like him around the world every day, then he preens onstage and says Trayvon Martin could have been his son. And you do your duty like the whore you are and try to draw attn away from Obama's world-class crimes with focus on this.

You're the worst racist I've come across on this site, Bobert. Obama and Holder sent feds in to agitate. Busted. Documents provided by Judicial Watch. Oh, and did I say fuck you?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:41 PM

"Is everything called a "broken nose" nowadays?"

Ebbie, trust me on this one: a broken nose hurts like a sonumabitch. I have broken about 30 bones in various parts of my body including my nose. I recall the broken nose but not most others.

As for the marks on the back of Z's head from hitting the sidewalk: I received worse than that by sliding into second. There are two times in my life I smacked fellows' heads into concrete (completely justified if you ask me). Didn't look like those marks Z had. In fact, I'd be a bit ashamed to tell anyone about it. I thought they grew 'em tougher in the south. Seems I thought wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:49 PM

Whatever, wrong man...

No, you are the racist, dude... Get over the fact that Obama is black, asshole...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:58 PM

It's pretty obvious that Songwronger has psychological problems. They manifest themselves in his rabid hatred of Obama.

Goofballupagus claimed once that he was a family counselor (could cure gays of their "perversion"). Maybe he can help cure Songwronger of his hate psychosis.

No. More probably they'd go out and have a few beers together and become bosom buddies. They seem to share the same delusions..

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:11 PM

Well, you are the two guys who keep giving him airtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:14 PM

I think they are suffering from "Polymorphous Perverse Guilt Syndrome", Don... Lotta that going 'round in Denial-ville...

Yeah, maybe they do need to get a beer together and talk these issues out???

I donno???

Ain't my problem, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:31 PM

Bobert: "No, you are the racist, dude... Get over the fact that Obama is black, asshole..."

Pardon me...actually he's half black, half white.

Bobert: "I mean, you can't go claiming to be this neutral party and then go about trashing the prosecution's arguments.."

But it is upon the prosecution to PROVE those arguments, and substantiate them...which has not happened.
Just like you call me a racist...That is so full of shit I can smell you from here...OK, you argue it, but now you have to prove it. The prosecution can say anything...it doesn't mean that's the way it is..until he provides corroborating evidence..neither the prosecution you, or Don has been able to do that...and calling people names is NOT a substitute!
Ever heard of 'All bark, no bite'?

Bobert: "You have defended Zimmerman at every turn..."

Show me or shut up!
Because I actually understand the law, I'm only stating what evidence was proved, and which was not. I agreed with you, on the things that were proved, and merely pointed out to you, what was not proved...I'm sorry that you can't see that...maybe you've got too much reverse discrimination in your own eyes..which, BTW, is racism.

My larger concern is the aftermath, after the verdict has been made public. I DON'T want to see more race riots, I DON'T want to see more killing, property damage or more hate..nor do I want any of us on here to promote that for any reason..IT'S WRONG!...Now. you think I'm alone on that???.... and even WE agree!!!! Here, Listen to this blithering racist'..on your favorite news channel!
Stop listening to that wannabe political agitator, condescending fool! you're on the wrong side on this one from listening to him!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:00 PM

Anonymous GUEST, they are the ones who are giving themselves airtime.

Have you noticed how may "hate Obama" threads Songwronger starts, GUEST? Sometimes several per day. And invariably, his lapdog, Goofball, joins in as his cheer leader.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:03 PM

You know, if you learned the correct use of the ellipsis your communications would be much clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:09 PM

If you are addressing me, anonymous GUEST, I DO use the ellipsis correctly.

I have a number of style manuals on my bookshelves, I have some thirty published magazine articles, and among other things, I have worked as an editor.

Which particular ellipsis are you beefing about?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:23 PM

Don, I was referring to GfS. He's a nice guy but his punctuation pisses me off more than his opinions ever have. I know what a good writer you are, except maybe when you let BOLD PRINT TAKE OVER.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:25 PM

Well again, why anyone would do a neighborhood watch with a firearms puzzles me. Ya just don't do it .. Your suppose to watch from your car or your house and use a cell phone to inform police. If he felt his life was in danger again the law ain't going to look kindly at it since your put yourself into that situation that was not necessary.

Carrying a firearm is serious business, ya have to know the law and kinda figure out how the law will look at you if you use it. Again it is only for dire situations that you cannot avoid. Manslaughter would probably been easier to prove.

I carry, A lot, but I was in law enforcement and gov agencies. States like Florida bug me because they are too easy to get a firearm with little training

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:59 PM

maybe you guys could just get a license and go fishing with me. a lot more fun then fighting. Been catching world class bass

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:07 AM

olddude, The way it looks, manslaughter, acquittal or hung jury, depending on the outside political pressure. Up until they opened it up for a lesser charge, it looked like acquittal...but now, that's changed. However, manslaughter requires negligence, and if it is argued successfully, the self defense issue could throw that out the window, for the reason, that self defense, is based on, it's 'either him or me', AND if he had reason to believe, that his life was in danger, or he was fearing about receiving 'great bodily harm'..as the law reads. Now, in Florida, the prosecution gives its final closing arguments, then the defense has its shot...but in Florida, the prosecution gets a final rebuttal, after the defense's closing statements. It's not like that in all states, but there it is. Up until yesterday, there were seven possible verdicts..today, I believe there are three, as listed above. I do not believe he will be found 'guilty' of 1st or 2nd degree murder. The prosecution is WAY to far away from proving that..that's why the plead for going to a lesser charge option.
That being said, I'm not rooting for any of them above another...just analyzing the way it unfolded in court...though some of our resident racists won't believe that. Frankly, I think the story was blown WAY out of proportion, but, it WAS politicized for the purpose of dividing people into further polarizations, and they got that!
Now if everyone can remain calm, no matter what the verdict, HOPEFULLY it might signal a return to unity, and a greater disregard for force-fed media pandering politics.
Let's hope for that..along with a more responsible media...(but more than likely, that won't happen).

Oh yeah, almost forgot, any takes on the Holder perjury, lying about his program, and the dead border agent???
Nixon pre-trial Manson statements?
Obama's??

Silly cherry picking hypocrites!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:11 AM

Right across the road, out front is a lake. our state's record bass was caught out of it..but not by me. We'll have to get together sometime! Up here, there is a lot of trout.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:20 AM

"Oh yeah, almost forgot, any takes on the Holder perjury, lying about his program, and the dead border agent?"

(Pardon me for quoting the sentence without the extra and unnecessary question marks.)

Holder wouldn't lie. He works for the government. That's what I've been told. That said, it's got little to do with the conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:31 AM

Sorry about the upper case stuff, GUEST. But I sometimes feel that if I don't shout loudly enough, there are people here who simply won't get it.

Futile, of course. I could tattoo it on their foreheads backwards so that every time they looked in the mirror they would read it and still not get it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:40 AM

GfS, have you lost it entirely? In that link Sharpton is totally non-racist and speaks ONLY of non-violent reactions. I listened to the speech and read the transcript: Do you object to ANY part of it? What is the matter with you?

"Let me be very clear," Rev. Sharpton said, "from the beginning of this when I was called [by the Martin family] and came in just to say this should go to trial and should not be decided in a police station, this family has said 'We believe in peace, and we believe in trying the criminal justice system,'" he said.

"I went and helped to lead and organize the first big rally in Sanford, where tens of thousands of people came," he continued. "And from that rally all the way through the rallies and the marches subsequent, leading to this trial, not one brick has been thrown, not one window broke."

"Justice requires that we stay non-violent and not become what we fight," he added later.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:45 AM

Ebbie, I was being facetious (to Bobert). Trying to point out to him that Sharpton and I were both saying the same thing, but Bobert is accusing me of being the racist. I thought maybe he'd believe what I was saying if it came from a black man TOO! (Bobert can't see his own racism, and thinks it's 'everybody else')
This is what I said: (everything in brackets, I added for clarity)
"My larger concern is the aftermath, after the verdict has been made public. I DON'T want to see more race riots, I DON'T want to see more killing, property damage or more hate..nor do I want any of us on here to promote that for any reason..IT'S WRONG!...Now. you think I'm alone on that???.... and even WE agree!!!! Here, Listen to this 'blithering racist'..on your favorite news channel!
Stop listening to that wannabe political agitator,(meaning Don Firth)condescending fool! you're on the wrong side on this one from listening to him!"

That being said, I'm usually NOT a fan of Sharpton..but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

On this one, Ebbie, we are in agreement...(grit your teeth).

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 07:24 AM

Manslaughter sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And I think it's the best that can come out of this. Georgie needs about 8-12 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:07 AM

"If I were walking down the street in the evening and someone approached me pointing a gun at me, I think I could safely assume that I was being attacked."

Except even the prosecution has not accused Zimmerman of approaching anyone pointing a gun.



"And Zimmerman didn't just go against police advice by getting out of his car and accosting Martin, he was going against their orders. They told him to stay in the car and not approach Martin."

I posted the 911 op. saying that "they did not need him" to do that- NOT an order, and 911 operators cannot give orders per testimony.





"Martin was doing nothing illegal when accosted by Zimmerman, and he had every reason to be frightened of him and try to defend himself."

Agreed, AS WAS ZIMMERMAN.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:17 AM

ZIMMERMAN was doing nothing illegal when accosted by MARTIN, and he had every reason to be frightened of him and try to defend himself.

Throwing a punch is an attack, asking what someone is doing is NOT.



At least, this is what is claimed by the defense, supported by the available evidence, and not refuted by the prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:26 AM

For all the Zimmerman haters out there, please answer one question:

WHO threw the first punch/ made the first physical attack?



The defense claims it was Martin, the prosecution witnesses have supported that , and the evidence seems to as well.

So who threw the first punch????

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM

WHO threw the first punch/ made the first physical attack?

We don't know for sure, BeardedBullshit, and niether do you.

Why don't you go back to posting cut-and-paste blogoshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM

"We don't know for sure, BeardedBullshit, and niether do you.
"


So how the fuck can you say that Zimmerman is guilty if you do not now the facts????

Oh, that's right- his victim was black, so he must be guilty-

What a bunch of racist bigots!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:13 AM

Interesting reading, ya'll... Well, the ones I read, that is... Seein' as I have pretty much laid the case out before that even a crash test dummy would get there is no reason to rehash that...

I would be perfectly happy with any conviction that would put Zimmerman behind bars for what he has done here... He, like O.J. back when, doesn't deserve a pass just because gun-nut-America is paying for his high priced legal team...

"8-12" sounds about right...

And Ol'ster's comments are right on... There is a reason they call it Neighborhood ***Watch*** and why they don't call it Neighborhood ***Shoot***... If you want to shoot, go to a firing range or a turkey shoot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Barring any unforeseen complications, George Zimmerman's defense team is expected to rest its case this afternoon. While the trial's not over yet, many observers have already made up their minds: Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Last weekend Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten tweeted, "I don't like George Zimmerman, & he caused this to happen, but from what I've read he will, and should, walk." ABC analyst Dan Abrams wrote, "I just don't see how a jury convicts [Zimmerman] of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin." The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel predicted that "unless the prosecution rallies, don't be shocked if Zimmerman walks away totally free."

I think they're right. Over the past two weeks, trial-watchers have seen a lot of things: bad jokes, anguish, rage, odd disparagement of Zimmerman's physical capabilities. But there's one thing we haven't seen: a compelling, factual rebuttal to Zimmerman's account of what happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed.

Here is what we know: Trayvon Martin died in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. If George Zimmerman hadn't been there, Martin would still be alive. Zimmerman found Martin suspicious. He called 911. A confrontation ensued. Beyond that, the facts are unclear. There's not much physical evidence in the case. Other than the defendant, there are no eyewitnesses. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin, and that he shot him because he felt he was at risk of great bodily harm. We can certainly speculate as to whether or not he's telling the truth, but can we say for sure? Zimmerman's the only one who was there, and none of the prosecution's witnesses came close to conclusively refuting his story.

That's a problem for the state. To convict Zimmerman, the prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't happened. And if the prosecution can't prove its case, then Zimmerman should walk. Many will see this as an unsatisfying outcome; many will think it shouldn't be this easy to kill someone, concoct an uncontradictable excuse, and get away with it. But a legally satisfying verdict cannot always be the same as a morally satisfying verdict. It would be unjust if Zimmerman were convicted based not on the strength of the evidence against him, but rather on the public sentiment against him.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/10/george_zimmerman_trial_trayvon_martin_s_shooter_is_probably_going_to_walk.html?wpisr

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Poetry Bird
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

""1. Zimmerman lied in court when he was asked if he had money for his defense...

True...but that is a separate charge, and not relevant to the events leading up to the shooting.""

You advocate believing a proven liar, even when the lie was delivered under oath in a court of law?

Exactly HOW is that not relevant to the whole of his testimony?

It would, anywhere but the Southern US, make the jury think very hard about whether the rest of his teatimony could be given any credence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

We're not discussing "The Facts", BeardedBullshit

We're discussing a single "fact".

So you can review:

Q. So who threw the first punch?

A. We don't know.

There. OK? Remember now?

And now, back to our regularly scheduled B-B-Blogoshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Poetry Bird
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

""1. Zimmerman lied in court when he was asked if he had money for his defense...

True...but that is a separate charge, and not relevant to the events leading up to the shooting.""

You advocate believing a proven liar, even when the lie was delivered under oath in a court of law?

Exactly HOW is that not relevant to the whole of his testimony?

It would, anywhere but the Southern US, make the jury think very hard about whether the rest of his teatimony could be given any credence.

Don T.