Zimmerman Gains Over 100 lbs Since Killing Trayvon Martin

In law it always means the same thing. As does probable. Reasonable is a lower standard than probable.

He is dead. I'm not trying to convict him of anything. I don't have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I only have to provide enough proof to show that his being a thief is reasonable. The jewelry and his statement is proof enough to establish reasonability that he was a thief.

He was seen committing the crime it is reasonable that the marker is in his bag. The video evidence of him committing the vandalism establishes the reasonability. Right now you are just being obstinate because you can see the writing on the wall, pun intended.

 

I think this is the key issue for many , or at least my self. How can you convict a man of murder knowing what you just said ( not saying you, saying a jury). Its a scary concept for me to think that we can start convicting people based on public outcry, not evidence.

 

Note that Shelie Zimmerman is pleading the 5th NOT spousal privilege.. and OMara has filed a motion (see GZLegal) to suppress the screaming 911 calls. He doesn't want the jury to hear that.

Something has gone screwy.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing shelie will say will convict or free zimmerman.

 

"Zimmerman Gains Over 100 lbs Since Killing Trayvon Martin"

maybe Martin cursed him, either that or he is attempting suicide by comfort food

or could be his brain was broke during the fight and he can no longer regulate his hunger urges...

.

 

Well it was OMara NOT Sims who stopped the deposition.. and they weren't questioning her on the separaate perjury charge..

So OMara doesn't want her talking.

 

Wrong.

False. You can't convict and you can't even charge because you have nothing. Nobody cares what your opinion is because you don't have any proof.

Nope, the evidence was stale. The "cop" should have arrested him at the time, if it actually happened. I'd ask to see the video but I'm guessing you don't have that either.

 

He called the police and went in pursuit of him because he looked "suspicious". We haven't discovered yet why he shot him.

 

odd... much like a murder charge for Zimmerman and your thoughts on his body weight and image.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Yea, except for the defendant's own statements, the multiple witness statements and the forensic evidence it's exactly the same.

And at least I've proved Z gained weight. Nobody can prove T stole anything.

 

Thats where the mystery comes in. He claims he found him on top of his chest, but the lack of injuries shows something else.

 

In your opinion, now let me take one of your quotes to address this....

"Nobody cares what your opinion is because you don't have any proof"

 

How is it stolen when you can't prove its stolen.

Well if I wanted to kill somebody I doubt if I would come empty handed, I would probably take a...........gun along with me.

- - - Updated - - -

I am missing where 45% of his head was covered in blood. Oh thats right my bad that was before they cleaned all the blood off and gave him a fresh pair of clothes.

 

Ah yeah, because the law requires you to have 45% of your head covered in blood before you can defend yourself.

 

Well usually when someone chases someone and the person doing the chasing has a loaded gun and that gun ends up killing the person they are chasing most juries tend to think that you murdered someone.

 

You are actually trying to convince us that those items don't exist? Boy, is the trial going to be a shocker for you.

 

Interesting opinion. Id like to use another quote of yours ( its your day!)...

"Uh-oh, here come the emoticons. I hurt somebody's feelings."


Did i hurt someones feelings ???

- - - Updated - - -

Like when a cop is chasing a criminal?

Anyways, your opinion isnt going to convict anyone of murder.

 

I don't know any law either that claims you have to have 45% of your head covered in blood either, but did it look like 45% of his head is covered in blood? Funny that the witness he told to call his wife didn't see 45% of his head covered in blood either.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm, I didn't realize Zimmerman was a cop.

 

You said someone, and I pointed out your obvious logic flaw. Wrong ? no... Petty? Maybe....

What are you rambling on about 45 % as if it means something?

 

Deflection noted.

If you get done stalking me, tell us all again how there's no witness statements or forensic evidence.

 

According to GZ it was done in self-defense. He has injuries and witness testimony that are consistent with this testimony. Unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self-defense then you must acquit. The suggestion continually made that GZ shot TM for just walking home from the store is just idiocy.

 

Interesting perspective.

 

What was the logic flaw again? Now every Zimmerman Lover on this forum was to claim that Trayvon was violent, yet he has no history of violence. They want to point out that Zimmerman was a gentle, community, caring guy, yet he has a history of violent and was carrying a loaded weapon the night in question. Trayvon didn't find Zimmerman "suspicious". Trayvon didn't jump out of his vehicle in pursuit of Zimmerman. Trayvon didn't shoot Zimmerman in the chest and claim self-defense. Yet Trayvon is the one that you want to claim ambushed Zimmerman and was the one who started the so-called violent encounter. Now anyone of the jury with alitte common sense is going to say, "Come On Man."

Didn't the EMT that attended Zimmerman the night in question state that 45% of Zimmerman's head was covered in blood.

 

Libs seem to be the most vindictive, cruel, and angry people I have ever met.

 

I dont think Zimmerman was a saint and I dont think Martin was either.. Martin had some anger issues among others and Zimmerman had some strange 911 phone call obsessions.

Why does it matter if the EMT said 45%?