Zimmermans Bond Revoked

who has?

 

Nobody. Not you. Someone harmless.

Well I assume not you. I happened upon him by chance.

 

Your quote proves nothing. You reference an "execution" in your quote. The physical evidence disproves such an absurd theory. The shot was fired from close range and it certainly wasn't any kind of "execution." Zimmerman did not force Martin to kneel and then put his gun to Martin's head and squeeze the trigger. The evidence shows that the shot was likely fired in self-defense to prevent more bodily harm from being inflicted upon the defendant than there already had been. The fact that your quote uses such emotional terminology ("execute" as an example) renders your initial supposed disclaimer of not being a judge or juror invalid, it clearly shows that your argument is one which presumes Zimmerman's guilt of something when he hasn't even had a trial yet. Zimmerman didn't get to "stroll out of the police station chewing a stick of gum" either, he walked out of the police station after being investigated and questioned and promptly went into hiding for fear of his life. So again, the quote in which you seem to be making a reasonable disclaimer actually invalidates that disclaimer by going further and using blatantly emotional terminology and exaggerated principles which clearly show that your argument is no different from any other leftist here who is one hundred percent certain George Zimmerman is guilty before he's even been to trial.

 

This Entire Trayvon Misadventure is little more than a farcial
Hollywood Movie like ... - There's Something About Mary - {1998}
where characters are poking around and scheming and plotting and
stretching the truth.Actually crafting a Scam for a specific end.
I'm just an honest and ethical guy myself.
I really can't stand the degree of unethical lamebrain knuckleheadedness,that
is tailor-made for those who can't handle obviousness.
From what we know,Zimmerman was justified and those Trayvon supporters
are doing everything possible to instigate this into a Race relations mess.

 

I also acknowledge some bias and say the guy needs a fair trial. If I was put on a jury for his trial I would clear my mind and listen to each peace of evidence as if it was the first time I ever heard it. Bottom line is we simply do not know a lot of things.

Is there any post on this forum where I have said he is 100% guilty of second degree murder?

 

uh.. no. I don't follow..

we know 'the kid' hadn't smoked weed in awhile since there was only miniscule amounts in his system, so we know he wasn't a 'drug addict'.. but we KNOW GZ lies to save his own hide..

and not only that, he gets people to aid in his lies..

How many times has he lied? doesn't matter. He lied, to a judge no less..his word is bunk...

and btw, he made his attorney look like a fool. O'mara will be lucky if the bar doesn't look into what he knew and when..

this isn't 'speculation'.. this isn't "well TM's lawyers did this and the DA did that and it should be illegal because I don't like it" opinion stuff.. GZ lied in open court to a judge..twice... This really is a big deal.

correct... until the other day it was Z's word against T's... today, we know we can't trust Z's word...

this changes everything...everything he says about what happened that night, what TM actions were against him, all of it is tainted.. because if he'll lie to a judge to save his butt when it comes to money and a passport.. it's really not a jump to say he'll lie about who started the violence that night..for anyone to say "His lies don't matter", well they're not paying attention enough because this is fantasy-football to them anyway..

 

HA!

post of the day!

 

Speaking of dishonesty.

You lied when you claimed Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. You were given the actual definition of stalked which requires repeated action and you still denied it.

You then lied saying he harassed Trayvon again pointing to the definition of harassment requires repeated action and you still haven't admitted to it.

You also lied claiming I favor Zimmerman when I'm on record admitting I have no idea what happened and I've said so repeatedly.

You also lied when you claimed you haven't been racist towards Zimmerman but claimed he "sounded white" which you used as justification for calling him white. Once again well documented

And to put a cherry on top from the beginning you lied claiming Trayvon was shot because he was black and the shooter was white.


And this is just the short list.

 

I don't know, I haven't read all of your posts. Your terminology, however, was indicative that your position feels Zimmerman is guilty of something, why else would you use such blatantly exaggerated and untrue terms like "execute" and exaggerate Zimmerman's exit from the police station as you're upset that he got off scott free when the fact of the matter is that he clearly did not?

 

typical Democrat.

 

it's not so cut and dried anymore.. he's a known liar now, his word that TM started it all and he was just defending himself, just got that much harder to prove.

 

Zimmerman's words hardly even matter, this case will play out by the physical evidence, not by Zimmerman's testimony. The facts speak the truth, regardless of whether Zimmerman has been one hundred percent honest or not. They show that Zimmerman sustained injuries which are indicative of suffering a beating to his face and the back of his head while Martin sustained a fatal gunshot wound and an abrasion to a finger or knuckle (indicating that he had been striking Zimmerman). Zimmerman's hands/fists/knuckles, etc. show no such injuries. Based on that alone, the reasonable doubt requirement for the self-defense claim is satisfied. Anything the defense has in addition to that is just icing on the cake.

 

Pretty much says it all.

 

He doesn't have to prove anything as the defendant claiming self-defense. His standard of "proof" is to show by a "preponderance of evidence" that he acted in self defense. The prosecution is tasked with doing all the "proving" and they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

 

he lied to the court already..

there's their proof...

now it's up to O'mara and Z to figure out a way to mitigate that damage..just saying "well he's telling the truth now" ain't gonna cut it IMO..

 

Just in case. IBTL

 

We are almost 800 posts into a contentious thread. Stuff is going to be said. But if you sit me down and look me in the eye and ask me what should be done I will say have a fair and speedy trial. If you ask me whether I am 100% sure Zimmerman is guilty I will say there is no way to know without a trial. Heck even with a trial there may not be a way to know.

Now having said that I do have certain biased feelings. For one thing at this time Zimmerman's story doesn't add up to me. If you are in the neighborhood watch you are told to observe and report. You are not told to cruise around armed. So that is mistake number one. Mistake number two is Zimmerman was dead wrong about Martin. There is no evidence of any criminality on Martin's part prior to Zimmerman starting to tail him. Zimmerman made a bad call. Mistake number two. After making the bad call Zimmerman got our of his vehicle and followed Martin after he was advised that is not necessary. Mistake number 3. So we have three huge mistakes before Zimmerman even made contact with Martin. Does that automatically mean he is guilty? No. But that does feed into my bias.

Furthermore Zimmerman's credibility gets called into question after the judge, who has seen a lot more of this case than you or I, says Zimmerman has lied under oath. That further feeds into my bias.

Even with all that and other things I can't honestly say at this time Zimmerman murdered Martin. That's what a trial is for.

The problem with this forum is we all have our biases. We will fight in thread, but only a few of us will say at the end of the day I don't know. I can say that because I am a rational human being. None of us has seen all the evidence and interviewed all the jurors. We simply do not know.

Now go and look at the threads on this forum. You never see me saying Obama is going to win in November. I honestly don't know. I hope he wins but I know there is a good chance he could lose. Now how many right wingers say that about Romney?

 

Zimmerman's dishonesty about a passport in no way proves that he was not acting in self-defense on the night of the incident, sorry. Two entirely separate incidents. The prosecution is going to have to address the physical evidence, which is stacked mostly against them and they're going to have to somehow attempt to either prove that Zimmerman acted physically first (which is impossible to prove) or they're going to have to somehow try to persuade the jury that the beating Zimmerman sustained wasn't justification for him to discharge his weapon in self-defense. If Zimmerman gets a fair trial, the jury will simply not buy such arguments from the prosecution.

Again, his dishonesty regarding his assets, passport, whatever has no bearing on his claim of self-defense. It's still up to the prosecution to address the physical evidence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not justified in shooting Martin and that he did not act in self-defense. His lying about assets or passports or what have you does not prove that. Sorry.

 

How you feel about legal carry is irrelevant. There is no doubt things could have been done differently by both Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman did nothing wrong and neither did Martin, so that begs the question why Zimmerman was bloodied and Martin was not (before the shot was fired). This is what is called a perfect storm, or similar to accidents, it is usually a multitude of errors that are causal.

 

I respect this post and your opinion, even if I do not personally agree with it.

 

Yes, it should!
Especially when Trayvon's autopsy report clearly state that his physical appearance is congruent with his age (17 years old), and that his height is 71" (that's 5'11". . .not 6'3 as previously reported by Trayvon's demonizers) and his weight 158 lbs (42lbs lighter than Zimmerman, as per police report!)

It is also interesting that the autopsy report established that the trajectory of the bullet was DIRECT from front to back, traversing the lung, and penetrating the heart. The entrance of the bullet was 17 1/2" from the head, and 1" left of the center of the chest. . .basically STRAIGHT to the heart.

Now, how curious it is that GZ (while having his head bashed, smashed in concrete, being pinned down, AND being "almost unconscious," close to "having to wear diapers for the rest of his life") was able to grab his gun in the holster inside his waist band (with the 158 lbs Martin straddling him. . .probably just about waist level!), raise his gun to be perpendicular (since the trajectory of the bullet was "direct from front to back") to Martin's heart, although Martin was (reportedly) in constant movement, bashing GZ's head in, and smashing GS's head in concrete, while at the same time holding his hand over GZ's mouth!

Can anyone explain this?

 

I believe that changed in 2010

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-941.pdf

he can re-use the defense in trial even if found lacking at pre-trial..

 

It is called point and shoot. There is nothing unusual about it unless you watch too much TV. You assume that Martin was perfectly perpendicular to the ground.

 

Not unless there's someone here who's been in such a situation. The fact of the matter is that it's still very easily possible for that trajectory to have occurred. It's simply where Zimmerman's gun was pointing when he pulled the trigger.

 

and part of his proof will be his version of the events that night that he was jumped.. his word, which is now tainted, is an issue. If he can't be believed that it was TM who jumped him, if his lies give the jury reason to think he not only started it, but instigated the violence as well.. he'll get a conviction.. not M2, but Ag Manslaughter of a child? probably..