Trayvon-Zimmerman

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : white hispanic?? hahahahaha!!
    Posted by tvoter[/QUOTE]

    Why are you laughing?  Hispanic is an ethnic definition not a racial definition.  Zimmerman is a white guy with Hispanic heritage.  Or do you think he is Black?  Or Asian?  An American Indian?  A Pacific Islander?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : Well there are a series of lines determined by the facts you mention. Generally, with self-defense, you cannot initiate combat and then claim self-defense. Of course, if you initiate a fist-fight and your opponent pulls a gun, you may now be able to lawfully respond with like force. It all varies state by state, and I haven't looked at self-defense for quite some time. States will also have varying law on whether use of certain words/gestures may be so threatening that they are equivalent to initiating physical combat. Basically, I think Zimmerman doesn't get self defense if he initiated a physical confrontation, say, by grabbing Martin and demanding he stop to talk, etc. If he confronted Martin, walked away, and was attacked while retreating, then he definitely would get self-defense. I also haven't studied the stand your ground law, so I do not know precisely how it interfaces with general self-defense law. I would imagine that if you're head is on concrete with your back on the ground, and you are being punched with enough force to break your nose, you very well may be entitled to shoot the person - even without a stand your ground law. Bottom line is that it's a very tricky case, and the more I hear the more I don't like. That jury is going to have a mountain of circumstantial evidence it must draw from in order to pick which facts actually existed - how this thing played out. At the same time, a boy is dead and I do not see enough exculpatory evidence to make the charge unfounded. If there is probable cause, it stands. Contrary evidence notwithstanding, I draw probable cause from the fact Zimmerman got out to confront him and from the mother identifying Martin's voice as the one screaming. The latter could be false, but this is probable cause stage, not conviction.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    I was going to ask you, as a defense attorney, what your take was on the evidence released.  Interesting, thank you.  Regarding the screaming, if the eyewitness is credible enough that it was Zimmerman not Martin screaming, I would think that would negate Martin's Mom's statement, right?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    Eyewitness: Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him MMA style
    Eyewitness: Zimmerman was screaming for help

    We can all agree that if, Martin would not have confronted him non of this would have happened.

    We can all agree that Zimmerman was volunteering to the community to try and stop burgularies and crime.

    They hired community volunteers because the Police were ineffective at stopping the burgularies and crime.

    It appears to me that Zimmerman and the community were tired of the crime and the pilce were not able to help.

    It appears that Zimmerman questioned Martin and was attacked and beaten.

    We can argue at what point it's self defense to shot someone attacking you I guess.

    If I have a broken nose and lacerations to the back of my head from an attacked is that sufficient reason to think my life may be in danger??

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]Eyewitness: Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him MMA style Eyewitness: Zimmerman was screaming for help We can all agree that if, Martin would not have confronted him non of this would have happened. We can all agree that Zimmerman was volunteering to the community to try and stop burgularies and crime. They hired community volunteers because the Police were ineffective at stopping the burgularies and crime. It appears to me that Zimmerman and the community were tired of the crime and the pilce were not able to help. It appears that Zimmerman questioned Martin and was attacked and beaten. We can argue at what point it's self defense to shot someone attacking you I guess. If I have a broken nose and lacerations to the back of my head from an attacked is that sufficient reason to think my life may be in danger??
    Posted by tvoter[/QUOTE]

    Not to mention that Martin was high on pot too.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : Not to mention that Martin was high on pot too.
    Posted by UserName99[/QUOTE]

    Traces are not relevent in my opinion.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : tvoter: Police have come to the conclusion that the killing of Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable. Even if Zimmerman can back up what happened after he pursued Martin, that does not mean he will be acquitted. Try reading what is in the link below. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/trayvon_martin_unavoidable_documents_george_zimmerman.php
    Posted by andiejen[/QUOTE]

    Gee, the TPM article and photos are quite telling, the photo of Trayvon has a "light" background, and the photo of Zimmerman has a very "dark" background.

    Coincidence I suppose?

    And will the police testify that the killing was "avoidable", or do you believe everything you read.

    I guess we'll wait to seee what the jury decides, remember the jury?  They are the ones deciding this trial, not you or anyone else on these boards. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : Gee, the TPM article and photos are quite telling, the photo of Trayvon has a "light" background, and the photo of Zimmerman has a very "dark" background. Coincidence I suppose? And will the police testify that the killing was "avoidable", or do you believe everything you read. I guess we'll wait to seee what the jury decides, remember the jury?  They are the ones deciding this trial, not you or anyone else on these boards. 
    Posted by doozy-day[/QUOTE]

    doozy-day:

    There is not a person in the forums that does not know the jury is the trier of fact... unless of course there is a bench trial. 

    Then again Zimmerman may plead out. 

    So we may or may not necessarily wait to see...not seee...what a jury decides.

    But thank you for the obvious, though incomplete observation.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    The same May 22nd Rasmussen Report also found the below.

    Sixty-four percent (64%) of blacks support the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the shooting as a possible hate crime, but 50% of whites think it’s a bad idea. Adults of other races favor the investigation by a 42% to 36% margin.

    Forty-eight percent (48%) of all adults think criminals should be prosecuted more severely if it can be proved that their crime was motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]Forty percent (40%) now think George Zimmerman, who has been charged with second degree murder in the Martin shooting, acted in self-defense. As evidence continues to emerge from the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, Americans are becoming more convinced that his killer acted in self-defense and that the legal system will come to that conclusion. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 24% of American Adults still believe the man who shot Martin should be found guilty of murder. But that’s down from 33% in late March when the case first began to draw national headlines and 30% in early April . Forty percent (40%) now think George Zimmerman, who has been charged with second degree murder in the Martin shooting, acted in self-defense. That’s up 25 points from 15% in March and up 16 points from 24% last month. Thirty-six percent (36%) remain undecided, compared to 55% two months ago. (To see survey question wording, click here .) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/40_now_say_trayvon_martin_shot_in_self_defense_24_say_it_was_murder  
    Posted by msobstinate99[/QUOTE]

    The only poll that will count is the poll of the 12 jurors sitting on the case. The ones that will actually see and hear evidence and not random people contacted on the phone about something they may know very little about.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]The same May 22nd Rasmussen Report also found the below. Sixty-four percent (64%) of blacks support the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the shooting as a possible hate crime, but 50% of whites think it’s a bad idea. Adults of other races favor the investigation by a 42% to 36% margin. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all adults think criminals should be prosecuted more severely if it can be proved that  their crime was motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation .  
    Posted by andiejen[/QUOTE]

    "Prosecuted more severely" lol That's like saying when we are doing things we percieve as more important we should do our best.

    NO we and the prosecution should take on each case/task with the same vigor and determination to do the best we can!!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : "Prosecuted more severely" lol That's like saying when we are doing things we percieve as more important we should do our best. NO we and the prosecution should take on each case/task with the same vigor and determination to do the best we can!!
    Posted by tvoter[/QUOTE]

    tvoter:

    You are missing the point entirely. The point is NOT putting in more effort but the consequences for the defendants should be higher in those cases.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : tvoter: You are missing the point entirely. The point is NOT putting in more effort but the consequences for the defendants should be higher in those cases.
    Posted by andiejen[/QUOTE]

    I know but, it's not what you said. I was just making light no offense
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : doozy-day: There is not a person in the forums that does not know the jury is the trier of fact... unless of course there is a bench trial.  Then again Zimmerman may plead out.  So we may or may not necessarily wait to see...not seee...what a jury decides. But thank you for the obvious, though incomplete observation.
    Posted by andiejen[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, I don't seee (oops, your bad, not mine), and you didn't address the background color of the photos, but thanks for avoiding the issue...completely!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : Sorry, I don't seee (oops, your bad, not mine), and you didn't address the background color of the photos, but thanks for avoiding the issue...completely!
    Posted by doozy-day[/QUOTE]

    doozy-day:

    What issue?  A big conspiracy theory about the background color of the photos? I did not think it was worth addressing.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]All those witnesses who you've been basing your defense of George ZImmerman on? Yeah, sit down I have something to tell you.... Newspaper: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816588-newspaper-4-witnesses-change-stories-in-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Whicj=h is exactly why investigators are taught to get witness statements immediately because as they talk to people and think about it they become unsure of themselves. The initial statements immediately after an incident are usually more accurate.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman : Seriously?? A light blue versus gray background color? And that is supposed to mean what? Geepers, only whacko wingnuts can 'see' what everyone else doesn't. It's as if they live an their own alternate reality.....
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Look again, dark blue behind Zimm to make him look "lighter" and a light grey behind Martin to make him look "darker".

    Don't you pin-heads remember the OJ trial?

    Let's cut to the chase, and your little friend Andi-jen can read along with you while you sit on the counch at the library:

    This trial is about black vs white, a white guy supposedly profiled a black guy, followed him, confronted him and shot him dead.  All in the indictment right?

    Rev. Al brought the troops into town to fire up the masses, and hopefully give it some legs for President Obama to pile onto.  But ABC news and the press messed up big time, remember?

    Now, a month later, there are some new facts coming to light, and now it may be a case of self-defense which was said all along.

    And you bozos don't like the facts that are coming out now.  I don't care about Rassmussen polls, the article, (remember the article?) in my opinion makes the black guy look "darker", and the white guy look "lighter".

    Just like when they made OJ look "darker" on the magazine cover.

    So shut up, and let's see what the jury says, when they riot in Sanford you'll know which way the jury ruled.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman

    In Response to Re: Trayvon-Zimmerman:
    [QUOTE]Wow, doozy is off his meds again. "Nurse, thorozine for doozy, stat." That's quite a screed. When are your sheets back from the cleaners. Geepers, people really do see what they want to see. "Who are you goin to believe, me or your lying eyes."
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Hows does does the statement make you claim racism?
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share