quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Read the trial transcript, review the video... everything I described is verifiably taken straight from the admitted evidence.


We can all hear Zimmerman on the tape, we can all hear the neighbor and the gunshot on the tape, and we can all read the official time line.

Now answer the simple question, when do you claim the head injuries occurred?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wow... If someone claims something as fact, then provide the facts. Dont tell me the case hinges on a set of facts that are NOT in evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Read the trial transcript, review the video... everything I described is verifiably taken straight from the admitted evidence.


We can all hear Zimmerman on the tape, we can all hear the neighbor and the gunshot on the tape, and we can all read the official time line.

Now answer the simple question, when do you claim the head injuries occurred?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wow... If someone claims something as fact, then provide the facts. Dont tell me the case hinges on a set of facts that are NOT in evidence.

I did. I also read his police report, which states, according to Z, that T hhit him in the face before he went down. Clearly, one of the head wounds occurred BEFORE he was on the ground.

Funny how that is, huh. Funny how that makes the whole discussion moot. Funny how you are now back pedaling into what DID happen instead of admitting you shoved your nose into a conversation you have no clue about and decided, without even bothering to look, that you knew what parties was where on issue and you, by GOD, were the only one to have the facts straight.

The whole point was... it was a bullshit assumption that ALL of Z's injuries resulted after he was pinned beneath T.

Now, if you have an issue with that, its your issue and in direct conflict with what Z himself has said.

Next.

quote:

I never mentioned Zimmerman's claim as to when the injuries occurred, I described a broader time frame from which the admitted evidence dictates they must have occurred. Zimmerman could be lying, but he doesn't have a time machine.

I have never backed away from that straight forward agreement with the reality once, and the strawmen aren't working.

So if I am so wrong in that simple assertion, then when did the injuries occur?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I never mentioned Zimmerman's claim as to when the injuries occurred, I described a broader time frame from which the admitted evidence dictates they must have occurred. Zimmerman could be lying, but he doesn't have a time machine.

I have never backed away from that straight forward agreement with the reality once, and the strawmen aren't working.

So if I am so wrong in that simple assertion, then when did the injuries occur?

I dont care what you mentioned... you shoved your nose into it.. Im giving you the facts. For the rest, do you own damn homework. I dont jump through your hoops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me.

I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon.

Who is the aggressor?

You are.

K.

I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor.
I have a right to self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The assumption is that Zimmerman got those documented injuries between the time he was heard speaking clearly to the dispatcher, and the time a few minutes later when the police lit him up moments after the trigger was pulled. (Those seconds can be counted off on the neighbor's call, from the sound of the gunshot, to 'there are men out there with lights now'.

Prove otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It hasnt been proven he took "multiple head injuries"

Photos prove he took multiple head injuries.

No, you need to read the post I replied too....

quote:

The question will boil down to...would a man pinned to the ground taking multiple head injuries reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily injury.

Again, there is no proof he had multiple head injuries under that condition.... if there is, please point to it.

You fellas are assuming he got the bloody nose and the head wounds while T had him "pinned" to the ground.

Now, prove it.

quote:

TheHeretic:

Put it on Zimmercan carrying out his volunteer duties, it's back to neighborhood watch not being supposed to carry guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me.

I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon.

Who is the aggressor?

You are.

K.

I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor.
I have a right to self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

How did you know he was armed?

Well let's say for argument sake that he did know. It's still bullshit. If the weapon is holstered, not drawn, not being brandished in a threatening manner, how does the mere fact that a person is armed give anyone the right to attack them and claim "self-defense"?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Particularly since burden of proof is on the State.

Witness testimony to George's multiple head injuries are in evidence. Witness testimony of George screaming for help while Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows is in evidence. If the state wants to argue otherwise, the burden is theirs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

How did you know he was armed?

Well let's say for argument sake that he did know. It's still bullshit. If the weapon is holstered, not drawn, not being brandished in a threatening manner, how does the mere fact that a person is armed give anyone the right to attack them and claim "self-defense"?

K.

It doesn't, in fact if anything it makes them suicidal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Particularly since burden of proof is on the State.

Witness testimony to George's multiple head injuries are in evidence. Witness testimony of George screaming for help while Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows is in evidence. If the state wants to argue otherwise, the burden is theirs.

Witness George Zimmerman CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY about whether or not the screams are his. BEFORE reviewing the 911 tapes with the cops.... ZIMMERMAN CLAIMS that Martin had his mouth covered and COULD NOT SCREAM. But after hearing the tape, where Martin stops screaming IMMEDIATELY after Zimmerman shoots him Zimmerman's story changes.

Now, is there any other actual EVIDENCE that Zimmerman was the one screaming? There's that dude who testified that he heard the screams bouncing off the far building. He also suggested that since Zimmerman had MMA training, and there was MMA fighting going on, that while they were grappling, Zimmerman was the one who 'ground and pounded' Marting. And of course, the lack of ZIMMERMAN DNA ON MARTIN does sort of go with the lack of REASONABLE FEAR of GBH or Death.

But then REASONABLE people don't take speed, and then pack firearms, do they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

How did you know he was armed?

Well let's say for argument sake that he did know. It's still bullshit. If the weapon is holstered, not drawn, not being brandished in a threatening manner, how does the mere fact that a person is armed give anyone the right to attack them and claim "self-defense"?

K.

It doesn't, in fact if anything it makes them suicidal.

The 'self-defense' for Martin is established the moment Zimmerman came close enough to be considered a physical threat. Zimmerman never identified himself, nor was he wearing a badge or uniform, so there is no reason for Martin to believe that Zimmerman IS NOT a threat to his life. And given Zimmerman's provocation, by following Martin in his car. Parking where Martin would walk past, and staring at him. Getting out of his car and following...

Any Jew or Black would think that the Aryan Brotherhood or Latin Kings are looking to make bones that night. And when Zimmerman got closer than any Police Officer would allow without positive control of the situation, then Trayvon Martin's right to self-defense began.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Particularly since burden of proof is on the State.

Witness testimony to George's multiple head injuries are in evidence. Witness testimony of George screaming for help while Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows is in evidence. If the state wants to argue otherwise, the burden is theirs.

Witness George Zimmerman CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY about whether or not the screams are his. BEFORE reviewing the 911 tapes with the cops.... ZIMMERMAN CLAIMS that Martin had his mouth covered and COULD NOT SCREAM. But after hearing the tape, where Martin stops screaming IMMEDIATELY after Zimmerman shoots him Zimmerman's story changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me.

I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon.

Who is the aggressor?

You are.

K.

I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor.
I have a right to self defense.

In Florida, following is not legally sufficient to make one the aggressor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me.

I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon.

Who is the aggressor?

You are.

K.

I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor.
I have a right to self defense.

In Florida, following is not legally sufficient to make one the aggressor.

That's why I said "pursued".

I'll take 2 syllable words for 100 Alex.