RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case

RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (Full Version)

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

Message

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:18:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Believe me, that is so not the question. Yes it is. It's all but said, even in the jury instructions. Your question, on the other hand, isn't. George is not required to prove he acted in self defense. The State is required to prove he didn't, beyond a reasonable doubt.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:22:49 AM)
That is cute and all, but not at all the case. Remember he had that Stand your ground defense fucking cold according to you, not so says reality.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:24:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, not really, one interpretation of that is in somebodies slant. Nope, no slant. It's all in the evidence without interpretation required. FACT: Martin attempted to elude Zimmerman before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle. (W8's testimony) FACT: Martin successfully eluded Zimmerman (W8's testimony) FACT: Zimmerman's exit of the vehicle was in direct response to dispatcher asking which way Martin was running. (NEN call) FACT: After successfully eluding Zimmerman, Martin reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home (W8's testimony) FACT: Martin refused to continue running, and refused to go inside Brandi Green’s home. (W8's testimony) FACT: Martin returned to the location the encounter occurred, else it couldn't have happened. (Multiple witnesses place the encounter at the T intersection, where previously George had no sight of Trayvon, primarily W11, W20, W6) FACT: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating Zimmerman (W6's testimony) FACT: Zimmerman made attempts to escape, but was prevented from doing so by Martin (W6's testimony)

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:25:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is cute and all, but not at all the case. Remember he had that Stand your ground defense fucking cold according to you, not so says reality. What exactly are you saying isn't the case?

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:36:08 AM)
Well, right off the bat everything you say, starting with this gobbletygook you say is FACT. That is as far from the definition of FACT in legal terms as you can get. Yes it is. *It's all but said, even in the jury instructions. Your question, on the other hand, isn't.* This is what I am saying isn't the case. If it is all but said, then it ain't said, which means it ain't shit. I imagine that if you want to gargle out a different defintion for proof, then this will also be of something more than valueless: George is not required to prove he acted in self defense. The State is required to prove he didn't, beyond a reasonable doubt. Because that is a distinction without a difference, and George can phone it in. He claims <<<<<<<<<<<note that word, it is self defense, and the state claims it is murder. If that be the case as you say, it is very cut and dried and all sacked up, Zimmy can take his defense fund and go tanning his ass in Belize while the prosecution hasn't a fucking pot to piss in and window to throw it out of, because of your FACT.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Because that is a distinction without a difference, and George can phone it in. He claims <<<<<<<<<<<note that word, it is self defense, and the state claims it is murder. And the State is the one required to prove their claim, not George. If the Jury thinks George committed murder, but isn't sure; George has to be acquitted. It's why Casey Anthony got off.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:44:20 AM)
You have very imprecise language to deal with, this notion of but isnt sure is nothing. it must be beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesnt have to be sure. Let go of the TV panderers, and go to real court sometime.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:49:23 AM)
A witness who saw Trayvon on top of George moments before the shot, with George trying to get up but unable to: That's reasonable doubt right there.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 10:54:02 AM)
Martin no dna on handle of gun, but one account had him going for it, Martin from behind by an account but Zimmie face up.... Martin thrashing the living shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman able from his back with one hand preventing any struggle for the gun, can still pull it out and cakk Martin.......... Reasonable doubt right there.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Martin no dna on handle of gun, but one account had him going for it, Martin from behind by an account but Zimmie face up.... Martin thrashing the living shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman able from his back with one hand preventing any struggle for the gun, can still pull it out and cakk Martin.......... Reasonable doubt right there. Reasonable doubt goes to the defendant.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:08:46 AM)
But to answer your specific claims: George's account is consistent with no DNA being on the gun; and forensics experts have said even if Trayvon touched it, there's no reason to assume DNA would be there. Also, the only part of the gun that ruled out Trayvon's DNA was the handle. At the moment George claims he pulled the gun, he wasn't getting "thrashed" at that point, he was stopping Martin from reaching the gun, and taking maybe 2 seconds to pull and fire it. Nothing in what you said remotely comes close to proving the State's burden for guilt.

tj444 -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:23:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I respect that naturally. My concern is that our opinions are often colored by extraneous influences, to wit: Media portrayal of Martin and Zimmerman The Associated Press noted that initially the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a "baby-faced boy," rather than as a young man in his late teens. To represent Zimmerman, the media chose a shot of a beefy 21 year-old Zimmerman taken seven years prior to the shooting, whereas recent photos show him as slim-faced and more mature. The two outdated photos chosen by the media may have helped shape the initial public perception of the shooting. The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "if the ingredients are there."[339] Good vs Evil My opinion was not based on the photos used by the media (the very first article I read didnt even have photos), it was based on how Zimmy handled himself with the 911 operator and what he said to her as well as the fact he was packing a gun (to go to the store?) and that he had some serious charges against him & incidents where he was violent and the aggressor, especially attacking a cop, seriously, who does that??? and he wanted to become a cop (& a Judge), no less.. there is not much logic with the guy, he is all emotion over-riding all else.. considering the things he has done both behind his various lawyers backs and against their advice (like the TV interview & his God comment [8\|] ), he should be on America's Dumbest Criminals. He has been his own worst enemy, not the media.. JMO

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:32:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And that is usually the case, even the folks that were there dont know what happened, they differ in their stories, and tell multiple stories and whatever, but a verdict will be rendered as it is in every other case, by a jury of his peers, none of which were there. And the story and stories will be led and elucidated on by two lawyers that weren't there. America, be there; or be square. DobieGillis. My juices were overflowing in those days. I was freakout smitten by Tuesday Weld Those were the days, my friend; we thought they'd never end. [:D][:D] [image]local://upfiles/897398/226A40A26CEF4101805558E98C237614.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:34:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Martin no dna on handle of gun, but one account had him going for it, Martin from behind by an account but Zimmie face up.... Martin thrashing the living shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman able from his back with one hand preventing any struggle for the gun, can still pull it out and cakk Martin.......... Reasonable doubt right there. Reasonable doubt goes to the defendant. Try again, sport. It is reasonable to doubt his multiple accounts of the events and how they could have transpired that fashion.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:40:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun But to answer your specific claims: George's account is consistent with no DNA being on the gun; and forensics experts have said even if Trayvon touched it, there's no reason to assume DNA would be there. Also, the only part of the gun that ruled out Trayvon's DNA was the handle. At the moment George claims he pulled the gun, he wasn't getting "thrashed" at that point, he was stopping Martin from reaching the gun, and taking maybe 2 seconds to pull and fire it. Nothing in what you said remotely comes close to proving the State's burden for guilt. Nothing in what you have said is credibly accurate, nor remotely believable. When the forensic experts have a dogshitload of things that start out: it is possible......Zimmerman is the coincedental second coming of Christ, and so, it aint near as cut and dried as you are on it at. In fact several of your authoritative treatises have bit you in the ass. Now, for the sake of argument cute, but nothing there is a certainty in the actual factual realm of the verdict. Its less than a 50/50 shot for Zimmy in my mind. 100 shot for zimmy in yours.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:50:48 AM)
Under Florida law, if the evidence is consistent with the Defense's theory of innocence, the Defendant has to be acquitted. So, when forensics experts say "It is possible", that's a point for the Defense. The Defense's claim is that George was on the ground, held down by Trayvon, unable to get away, while sustaining injury until George believed he needed to use force to prevent serious bodily injury. NOTHING in the current evidence disproves that theory, and under Florida law, that theory has to be disproven, or the case is insufficient to even reach a jury. (See Stieh vs. State and Fowler vs. State for starters). So, I'm not saying it's a 100% shot for Zimmerman. There might be some piece of evidence out there that disproves the Defense's theory. The existing publicly known evidence isn't remotely enough to make a conviction stick though. Maybe in, say, Ohio there would be a chance, but not Florida. Precedent there is too strong on George's side.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Martin no dna on handle of gun, but one account had him going for it, Martin from behind by an account but Zimmie face up.... Martin thrashing the living shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman able from his back with one hand preventing any struggle for the gun, can still pull it out and cakk Martin.......... Reasonable doubt right there. Reasonable doubt goes to the defendant. Try again, sport. It is reasonable to doubt his multiple accounts of the events and how they could have transpired that fashion. No need to try again when you're the one that's wrong. Reasonable doubt goes to the Defendant. Anyone that says otherwise does not understand Florida law.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 11:58:07 AM)
Yeah, you might have to do some dictionary time, sport. fact consistent Nothing in the current evidence proves that theory that he feared for his life, or he wouldnt have been there putting himself into it. (most people (and I mean at a 99.9% percentile either run, or hide you see (and that is an indisputable fact)) And I hear you and what you are saying and we can say that we are not of the same opinion.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 12:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing in the current evidence proves that theory that he feared for his life, or he wouldnt have been there putting himself into it. (most people (and I mean at a 99.9% percentile either run, or hide you see (and that is an indisputable fact)) George is not required to prove it. The State is required to prove otherwise. There is no legal obligation to avoid the risk of danger, no legal obligation to stay in the vehicle "just in case" Trayvon decided to turn back around, etc. George was not even required to have fear for his life. Just a reasonable belief that at the moment the shot was fired, that he needed to do so to prevent serious bodily injury. You've not made any argument as to why a conviction should be expected.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/26/2012 12:05:52 PM)
you need to look up proof. If I say, that 99.9% of people in fear for their life, run and hide, and there is nothing in the genetic makeup of George Zimmerman that is part of Audie Murphies DNA I have cast an extremely reasonable doubt that (a couple things) he is not one of the .1%, or that the actions are consistent. That will be deemed a proof (legally) and a FACT if they convict him.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875