RE: George Zimmerman Update... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 2:59:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The reason the judge allowed the bail is because he`s forging an appeal proof case.


He allowed bail because he's following Florida law which says George had the right to bail unless the State could meet a burden of proof that it didn't meet.


Um. Did you see the part in the Judge's decision that explicitly said that Zimmerman violated the conditions of his prior bond, but that the Court and State weren't exercising their right -- at this time -- to move forward on Contempt and Perjury charges?

BUT the Judge ALSO mentioned that he could revoke bail to "preserve the integrity of the judicial process" or some similar wording.

BUT the Judge then used his discretion to grant bail again.

So, I'm going to have to dispute your assertion that the States' burden wasn't met.

I think the Judge *KNOWS* deep in his heart, that Zimmerman's going to fuck up his bail conditions again. I think the drug tests are going to be the 'gotcha'. He's going to go forget that he's not made of Teflon anymore, and go have a beer some night.




farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:02:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And Zimmerman being a lying piece of shit who would defraud his own defense attorney as he was preparing to flee the country after being granted on bail is enough to dispel any lingering doubts.

If Zimmerman's telling the truth, why was he trying to flee prosecution?


He didn't. The Judge said that circumstances meant that would have been a reasonable conclusion of the court. O'Mara had evidence that showed they weren't trying to flee but didn't present it, maybe because it could have been more incriminating to Shellie. (Only reason I could think of).


It's POSSIBLE that O'Mara has evidence that JFK was killed by Martians.

But all the evidence in the world don't amount to shit if you don't have the balls to actually enter it.

I feel sorry for O'Mara. He didn't realize that his indigent client was a scam-artist, and now he's put in a position of trying to do a SYG defense without being able to actually have a SYG hearing, since O'Mara cannot put Zimmerman on the stand without ending Zimmerman's chances of acquittal.




farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:06:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And the witnesses I mentioned still corroborate Zimmerman's story, with nothing from the state so far to refute it, as I said.

The more the person heard/saw, the more they seem to match Zimmerman's story.


DeeDee HEARD ZIMMERMAN APPROACH MARTIN, which of course is the BEST WITNESS to the confrontation, and of course, her version completely refutes Zimmerman.

So, How do you get from a Star Witness completely destroying Zimmerman's claims to, as you put it, "Nothing from the state so far to refute it"?

Looks like it was completely refuted, but for some reason, you can't perceive it? Is this something completely outside your Cognitive Framework?



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:06:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
So, I'm going to have to dispute your assertion that the States' burden wasn't met..


"However this Court recognizes that "it is free to disagree and to express its disagreement with an appellate court ruling but it is duty bound to follow it."

This Court's discretion is, therefore, limited by Paul.

This Court has, thus far, declined to exercise its contempt powers and the State failed to prove that the Defendant may be held without bond. Further action by this Court, therefore, is limited to his already-effected arrest, the subsequent release on new bond conditions and the possibility of future contempt proceedings.
This Court must, then, determine the appropriate bond amount based upon the criteria set forth in Fla. Stat. 943.046(2).

Lester's ruling, 7/5/12



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:07:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And the witnesses I mentioned still corroborate Zimmerman's story, with nothing from the state so far to refute it, as I said.

The more the person heard/saw, the more they seem to match Zimmerman's story.


DeeDee HEARD ZIMMERMAN APPROACH MARTIN, which of course is the BEST WITNESS to the confrontation, and of course, her version completely refutes Zimmerman.

So, How do you get from a Star Witness completely destroying Zimmerman's claims to, as you put it, "Nothing from the state so far to refute it"?

Looks like it was completely refuted, but for some reason, you can't perceive it? Is this something completely outside your Cognitive Framework?



Deedee's testimony is almost completely refuted by the testimonies of people actually there.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:09:15 AM)

This Court has, thus far, declined to exercise its contempt powers

Contempt is a crime. That's a violation of his earlier bail conditions.

And as far as the state not making their case, I didn't see the State even TRY to make a case for perjury. But that doesn't say they couldn't have.

I *know* you like to focus in on just the part which -- out of context -- promotes your defective premise, but when the FIRST HALF OF THE SENTENCE DISPROVES YOUR POINT, you should probably engage in more effective selective editing if you're going to troll.



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:13:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


Contempt is a crime. That's a violation of his earlier bail conditions.


"However, he has not been charged with either of those offenses and they did not technically occur while on pretrial release. Therefore, this Court finds these facts relevant to the question of the suitability of bond, but cannot treat these potential offenses, standing alone, as a basis to hold order pretrial detention as authorized in Fla. Stat. 903.0471."

Lester's ruling, 7/05/12



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:15:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And the witnesses I mentioned still corroborate Zimmerman's story, with nothing from the state so far to refute it, as I said.

The more the person heard/saw, the more they seem to match Zimmerman's story.


DeeDee HEARD ZIMMERMAN APPROACH MARTIN, which of course is the BEST WITNESS to the confrontation, and of course, her version completely refutes Zimmerman.

So, How do you get from a Star Witness completely destroying Zimmerman's claims to, as you put it, "Nothing from the state so far to refute it"?

Looks like it was completely refuted, but for some reason, you can't perceive it? Is this something completely outside your Cognitive Framework?



Deedee's testimony is almost completely refuted by the testimonies of people actually there.


I dunno. All those people -- who once the police weren't prompting them -- who have changed their claims.... You're counting on those people to refute the person who heard Zimmerman approach Martin?

Remember, the Prosecution has a whole case here. Zimmerman's prior girlfriend's evidence of his bigotry. Zimmerman's training to avoid confronting suspects. Zimmerman ignoring direct instructions -- in line with that training -- to avoid confronting Martin...

That's all important. That proves Depraved Indifference. And once that groundwork is laid, all of Zimmerman's actions fall right into line with the narrative.

So, while you're focused on the irrelevant "Who threw the first punch", the prosecution is going to show that Zimmerman had a problem with black kids, and when they play that part where he talks about "they always get away", and talk about how Zimmerman wasn't letting Martin get away.

THEN they show that Zimmerman is a liar.

So, exactly how are the witnesses going to refute all that?



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:17:22 AM)

If they can't refute the claim that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground unable to get away until he feared for his life, the rest of the State's narrative becomes irrelevant.

Self defense has to be nullified before the Jury can even consider whether the State has met it's burden on the aspects of the Murder 2 charge.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:21:07 AM)

Is there a single direct witness who definitively claims -- and can't be impeached on cross examination -- that Trayvon Martin prevented George Zimmerman from retreating once Zimmerman expressed that intent?

Is there a single direct witness to refute the State's case that Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin at gunpoint?



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:21:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Is there a single direct witness who definitively claims -- and can't be impeached on cross examination -- that Trayvon Martin prevented George Zimmerman from retreating once Zimmerman expressed that intent?


The defense doesn't have to prove it. If the possibility exists, the burden is on the State to disprove it.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:26:32 AM)

And since Zimmerman never said he expressed an intent to retreat, NOR DID ZIMMERMAN EVER INDICATE ANY ATTEMPT TO RETREAT, than he doesn't get immunity.

Maybe Zimmerman should have read up on the law better before fabricating his story? He should have mentioned saying "No, man, I'm just trying to get back to my car, please let me pass..." and "I *TRIED TO* run away....".....




farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:29:36 AM)

It's going to come down to this. Does the Jury believe a liar, or all these facts presented by the Prosecution? At the end of the day, everything Zimmerman has ever said and done is tainted by his dishonesty. And when you're charged with murdering a juvenile, you really, really could use a sympathetic jury who doesn't think you're a lying racist piece of shit.

Which, of course, Zimmerman will be unable to benefit from.



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:30:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And since Zimmerman never said he expressed an intent to retreat, NOR DID ZIMMERMAN EVER INDICATE ANY ATTEMPT TO RETREAT, than he doesn't get immunity.



1) That's assuming he was the aggressor, which I still don't see the State proving.
2) W6 seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman seconds before the shooting with Zimmerman struggling to get away and unable to meets the defense's burden in that regard, even if the State somehow proves George the aggressor. George doesn't need SYG immunity, that scenario means traditional self defense has him covered.

We've been over this over and over.



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

It's going to come down to this. Does the Jury believe a liar, or all these facts presented by the Prosecution? At the end of the day, everything Zimmerman has ever said and done is tainted by his dishonesty. And when you're charged with murdering a juvenile, you really, really could use a sympathetic jury who doesn't think you're a lying racist piece of shit.

Which, of course, Zimmerman will be unable to benefit from.


It doesn't quite work that way. Look at Casey Anthony. Found guilty of lying to investigators, and the State still couldn't prove the murder charge.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:36:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And since Zimmerman never said he expressed an intent to retreat, NOR DID ZIMMERMAN EVER INDICATE ANY ATTEMPT TO RETREAT, than he doesn't get immunity.



1) That's assuming he was the aggressor, which I still don't see the State proving.



Well, you say that DeeDee's testimony is irrelevant.

I say, and suspect the prosecution will say that -- given the incredible claim by Zimmerman that he exited his car to figure out the name of the street -- and his expressed desire to prevent Martin from getting away -- and his disregard of the police dispatchers advice ( and consequently his specific training to avoid confrontation ) -- and Dee Dee's testimony, that it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Now, will the Jury believe that? It's a hell of a case when you consider ALL the facts like that as a coherent whole.

But hey, maybe you can tell everyone what Trayvon Martin's motive would have been for attacking George Zimmerman without provocation, which of course is an essential assumption in your defense here, so before we go forward, you really, really need to provide a credible motive for that. Otherwise, Zimmerman's entire story falls apart, and we're just wasting CPU cycles and disk storage.







farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:40:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


2) W6 seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman seconds before the shooting with Zimmerman struggling to get away and unable to meets the defense's burden in that regard, even if the State somehow proves George the aggressor. George doesn't need SYG immunity, that scenario means traditional self defense has him covered.

We've been over this over and over.


Didn't I ask for someone who couldn't be impeached on cross?

Witness 6?

“At first, I thought it was the person on the ground, just because, you know, me thinking rationally, if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would be yelling,” he said, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. “I truly can’t tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk. You can’t see a mouth …”

So, Witness #6 is a flip-flopper. For analysis purposes, I think we can consider his testimony a push, and just set it aside.

Now, do you have someone who ISN'T a flip-flopper?



Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 3:57:23 AM)

Nope, that's not a flip flopper. His testimony remains consistent that Trayvon was on top and Zimmerman unable to get away. That's the part that will be important, especially combined with the other evidence (2 lacerations, bruising on both sides of his head, swelling on the side of his head that the blood flowed toward.

I still strongly believe the witnesses and evidence will make it near impossible to prove that George contemporaneously chased anyone, confronted anyone, or started anything, and more importantly will not be able to prove that he wasn't in a position where he was unable to escape with someone using disproportionate force against him. Massad Ayoob has indicated that he may testify on George's behalf, and he's explained in seminars that once you have someone against the ground, fists become deadly weapons.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 4:12:50 AM)


But hey, maybe you can tell everyone what Trayvon Martin's motive would have been for attacking George Zimmerman without provocation, which of course is an essential assumption in your defense here, so before we go forward, you really, really need to provide a credible motive for that. Otherwise, Zimmerman's entire story falls apart, and we're just wasting CPU cycles and disk storage.






Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/8/2012 4:42:55 AM)

Nope, because again, as repeated over and over, Trayvon isn't the one on trial, and it's not the Defense's burden to prove self defense, or why Trayvon attacked. The fact the State admitted they don't know who started the fight should be sufficient for the Defense to argue George wasn't the aggressor.

And unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George could escape while being pinned down and unable to get up according to corroboration from W6, it won't even be relevant who provoked the encounter anyways, George still has the right to self defense.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125