Trayvon Martin Case

[RGIII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 could not be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.

^flashlight lawyer *sigh*

[Hog1]

607 and.......counting......down

[JoeRedskin]

I admit it ... I simply do not understand either of the two previous posts.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 could not be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.

We can speculate about different scenarios including the possibility that Zimmerman had his weapon drawn from the get go and the struggled for the gun ensued while he was attempting to pistol-whip Martin. That fact of the case are pretty simple and it's a matter of using your common sense.

• Profiled Martin as one of those "****ing punks. Those assholes, they always get away"
• Pursued Martin
• Violate community protocol
• Get out of car after Martin allegedly circled his car
• Inconstant statements about what happened
• Inconsistent statements about why got out of his car
• He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watchman
• Shoots and kills Martin during a struggle that was avoidable
• Goes on national TV and says "This is all god's plan and I wouldn't do anything differently (blatant disregard for human life).

Anything is possible in this world but we have to rely on the facts of the case and the fact of the case are sufficient enough to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter (at a minimum), The burden of proof has been met by the state and nothing in the defense persuasive enough to arrive at an alternative verdict. It is that simple.

[JoeRedskin]

My inferences are no more speculative than yours. I cited to and relied on testimony and physical evidence.

Prove, by direct evidence, that any inference I have drawn could not have occurred.

[JoeRedskin]

You believe what you what you want to believe and justify it to yourself however you want.

To me your every post proves you long ago decided the presumption of innocence is inapplicable to Zimmerman.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me your every post proves you long ago decided the presumption of innocence is inapplicable to Zimmerman.

You can thank the media for that. From the start, they've single handily have had a agenda with this case. It was great for ratings, and even got the great Al Sharpton and crew down to Florida to fight this injustice. You had the media editing the 911 call to make it sound like a racial issue, and they've ran with that MO the whole time.

These people in this thread made up their minds long before the trail ever started.

[SmootSmack]

Of course, it's the media's fault. Sigh

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

We can speculate about different scenarios including the possibility that Zimmerman had his weapon drawn from the get go and the struggled for the gun ensued while he was attempting to pistol-whip Martin. That fact of the case are pretty simple and it's a matter of using your common sense.

Lol. When anything is possible... look up what reasonable doubt is, and which side it favors in this case.

Originally Posted by saden1

• Profiled Martin as one of those "****ing punks. Those assholes, they always get away" Numerous prior incidents mainly by young black males. Not a crime for Zimmerman to profile.
• Pursued Martin Not a crime.
• Violate community protocol I doubt you know what this means, because even if you know technically what it means, there's no crime here either.
• Get out of car after Martin allegedly circled his car Not a crime
• Inconstant statements about what happened Police who were on the scene, and interviewed Zimmerman, and have heard other people repeat stressful accounts repeatedly, have called all of Zimmerman's testimony consistent.
• Inconsistent statements about why got out of his car Again, the detectives interviewing him called Zimmerman's statements consistent.
• He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watchman And you think this is a crime, too? LOL.
• Shoots and kills Martin during a struggle that was avoidable Maybe it was. Do you have any evidence? Saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, his home, etc, could be applied to Martin as well, and would be equally wrong.
• Goes on national TV and says "This is all god's plan and I wouldn't do anything differently (blatant disregard for human life). That's standard belief for many christians, even in tragedy. lol at "blatant disregard for human life". You never heard christians talk about gods plan before, when something bad happens to them, saden?

So basically all you have, saden, is to try demonizing everything Zimmerman did. "He watched a stranger with the same demographic as previous criminals in that area! He got out of his car! He didn't identify himself! (nevermind you don't even know if this is true or not) He said everything was god's plan! Oh the horror! He's a monster! Guilty! Guilty!"

Originally Posted by saden1

Anything is possible in this world but we have to rely on the facts of the case and the fact of the case are sufficient enough to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter (at a minimum), The burden of proof has been met by the state and nothing in the defense persuasive enough to arrive at an alternative verdict. It is that simple.

I know this will fly over your head, saden, because JoeR has explained this numerous times to you. But just for anyone else reading this: This is a traditional self defense case. Defendant has to make a prima facie case that self-defense was possible. (on the face of things, the self defence claim is plausible). If the defense provides evidence that is the case, it's up to the prosecution to prove that it was not a case of self defense. If there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, the verdict should be not guilty, as is normal in criminal cases.

The defense in pre-trial, and the prosecution and defense in court, provide plenty of evidence that self defense was a possibility in this case. Not just "anything could happen", but for example the injuries to Zimmerman (and no injuries from fisticuffs to Martin), eyewitness accounts placing Zimmerman under Martin, Zimmerman's statements (and just look at the situation. For example: If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin from the get-go, why did he call 911?)

So the burden of proof is on the prosecution here, to prove manslaughter or murder. Watch the prosecution's closing statement. All they did was cast reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claims. If the burden of proof was on the defense, this would be a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And the prosecution put forward nothing that they proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Their theories are no more proven that your idea that Zimmerman ran up to Martin and pistol whipped him (after putting on a white hood, I assume), or that Martin threw the first punch on the "creepy ass cracker". Reasonable doubt means the prosecution has to prove their side more than "anything could have happened".

After Casey Anthony, OJ, the first Rodney King trial, who knows what the jury will do. But barring any new info, murder2 is a joke. Manslaughter depends on what you think of Zimmerman (and how high standard you think reasonable doubt is). A civil action (wrongful death?) is a possibility with a lower standard to prove than manslaughter.

But the comments by some people here... are more embarrassing than Martin's friend's testimony was. Seriously, can you imagine if she said in court what RGIII, saden, and gary84 have said here?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Lol. When anything is possible... look up what reasonable doubt is, and which side it favors in this case.

So basically all you have, saden, is to try demonizing everything Zimmerman did. "He watched a stranger with the same demographic as previous criminals in that area! He got out of his car! He didn't identify himself! (nevermind you don't even know if this is true or not) He said everything was god's plan! Oh the horror! He's a monster! Guilty! Guilty!"



I know this will fly over your head, saden, because JoeR has explained this numerous times to you. But just for anyone else reading this: This is a traditional self defense case. Defendant has to make a prima facie case that self-defense was possible. (on the face of things, the self defence claim is plausible). If the defense provides evidence that is the case, it's up to the prosecution to prove that it was not a case of self defense. If there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, the verdict should be not guilty, as is normal in criminal cases.

The defense in pre-trial, and the prosecution and defense in court, provide plenty of evidence that self defense was a possibility in this case. Not just "anything could happen", but for example the injuries to Zimmerman (and no injuries from fisticuffs to Martin), eyewitness accounts placing Zimmerman under Martin, Zimmerman's statements (and just look at the situation. For example: If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin from the get-go, why did he call 911?)

So the burden of proof is on the prosecution here, to prove manslaughter or murder. Watch the prosecution's closing statement. All they did was cast reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claims. If the burden of proof was on the defense, this would be a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And the prosecution put forward nothing that they proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Their theories are no more proven that your idea that Zimmerman ran up to Martin and pistol whipped him (after putting on a white hood, I assume), or that Martin threw the first punch on the "creepy ass cracker". Reasonable doubt means the prosecution has to prove their side more than "anything could have happened".

After Casey Anthony, OJ, the first Rodney King trial, who knows what the jury will do. But barring any new info, murder2 is a joke. Manslaughter depends on what you think of Zimmerman (and how high standard you think reasonable doubt is). A civil action (wrongful death?) is a possibility with a lower standard to prove than manslaughter.

But the comments by some people here... are more embarrassing than Martin's friend's testimony was. Seriously, can you imagine if she said in court what RGIII, saden, and gary84 have said here?

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense. Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles. Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

[RedskinRat]

Have you watched and of the trial coverage, Chico?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Have you watched and of the trial coverage, Chico?

very little, usually just read the blog at cnn. Work, its a bitch

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense. Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles. Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

Saden1 uses 'common sense'!

Bwahahahahaha!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

very little, usually just read the blog at cnn. Work, its a bitch

My sympathies, Chico. I was in the same situation before I got two people to delegate all my work to.