Mock

(06-04-2013, 10:19 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 10:18 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I happen to like this version of F.U.

This is the only version of him I know.

Me too.

Whether we agree or not, F.U. has always been direct and sensible in discussions, in my experience.

(06-04-2013, 10:59 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]But, you are blaming the victim.

Adub, I know you believe with your whole being that Z is guilty.

At least I've said that if it can be proven that he's a big, fat liar, then he deserves justice, and then some (to prevent anyone else in his position from doing what he did).

(06-04-2013, 11:01 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 10:57 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]That's truly funny that this irritates you!

Check out what I'm known as: Mr. Insightful.

Do I think all black kids are on their way to a life of crime? Hardly.

However, I feel I've seen what I need to see in order to speculate on young Mr. Martin.

I've never once, however, said he 'deserved' what he got, only that he should've been more careful in who he decided to bumrush.

You presented your statement in such a way as to indicate he deserved what he got.

What exactly did you see that makes you believe he was headed for a life of crime? I look forward to reading your reply.

T had a right to be where he was, George did not have a right to follow him even if he was doing so as NW. He didn't & you can't claim he did given it's a NW rule.

Some of the images, texts, etc.

17 year-olds aren't just out handling guns on a whim. It's because they're surrounded by people that are leading them down the wrong path.

You can argue all day with me about what T's future would've been and it won't change my mind.

Where you and I truly disagree is whether or not T had the right to attack someone who was following him. You think that once a person senses someone is following them, any rules go out the window and physical harm is fine. Regardless of what the 'followers' intentions were. I happen to disagree with you.

That will be what the jury is asked to decide. Did T have the right to attack Z (and all we have is Z's version of the story)?

(06-04-2013, 10:54 AM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]Could you imagine having to live with that guy, Jesus Christ.

I am pretty annoying.

Thank God I gave my wife two precious kids and take her on vacation enough to have her put up with me.

Unfortunately for her though, after Michael Douglas' revelation yesterday, I told her box-munching was no longer in her future.

You still don't know that T "attacked" Z. Z could have grabbed T by the hoodie (for example). You're a stubborn bastard, MS and in your own weird way, you're just as opinionated about this case as Adub.

(06-04-2013, 11:31 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]You still don't know that T "attacked" Z. Z could have grabbed T by the hoodie (for example). You're a stubborn bastard, MS and in your own weird way, you're just as opinionated about this case as Adub.

I did preface just a few posts back, that all we have is Z's side of the story.

If I'm wrong, and the prosecution can prove Z is/has been lying, then send his roly, poly ass to prison.

I'm guessing he'll end up with a few burritos in his ass.

(06-04-2013, 11:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]That will be what the jury is asked to decide. Did T have the right to attack Z (and all we have is Z's version of the story)?

No the most important thing the jury will have to decide is IF the defence can convince the jury that T attacked Z did Z have the right to shoot and kill him in response?

Deciding whether a teenager had the right to break the nose of a guy who was following him is a far less important a question than deciding whether a grown man had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager.

(06-04-2013, 11:42 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 11:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]That will be what the jury is asked to decide. Did T have the right to attack Z (and all we have is Z's version of the story)?

No the most important thing the jury will have to decide is IF the defence can convince the jury that T attacked Z did Z have the right to shoot and kill him in response?

Deciding whether a teenager had the right to break the nose of a guy who was following him is a far less important a question than deciding whether a grown man had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager.

Doesn't work that way.

You're right, however, it's all intertwined.

(06-04-2013, 11:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Some of the images, texts, etc.

17 year-olds aren't just out handling guns on a whim. It's because they're surrounded by people that are leading them down the wrong path.

The gun photo? OMG! It was being held by a black hand. Must have been Trayvon's black hand. And it has yet to even be authenticated. You do know that photos can be uploaded off the internet. Just because one has a photo on a social media site, or even on their cell phone, does not mean that they took the photo. Get with the times, MS.

O'Mara just went on media apology tour for lying in open court. Of course George's attorney didn't admit to lying, just misrepresenting the facts. Facts that he said the State had withheld. And that he only discovered them last month because of a whistleblower from the State Attorney's Office.

But yet in a document dump last August (9 months ago) George's attorney makes mention of the very video, and photos, that he said he just received? He got them off of the sim card from Trayvon's phone. Provided by the State. It is documented that O'Mara had this shit for 9 months. So wtf is he talking about?

And he is complaining because the State gave him the bin file which has to be decoded? And he can't afford the software, or the expert to decipher it? George's attorney asked for the "native file"? So that is what he got.

Too bad his client blew through the $400k raised from the website without recognizing that a good defense costs $$$. What a dumbass.

(06-04-2013, 11:35 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 11:31 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]You still don't know that T "attacked" Z. Z could have grabbed T by the hoodie (for example). You're a stubborn bastard, MS and in your own weird way, you're just as opinionated about this case as Adub.

I did preface just a few posts back, that all we have is Z's side of the story.

The state has a bit more than Zimmerman's side of the story. They also have the location of where Trayvon was shot. Which contradicts Zimmerman's side of the story. Straight up. They have the NE911 call placed by Zimmerman, which contradicts Zimmerman's side of the story. They have the forensic evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story. And they have multiple statements made by Zimmerman that contradict Zimmerman's story. But, I guess that would depend on which story from the big fat liar one wants to believe.

And don't forget the bullet casing. I've watched those videos showing the trajectory of the shell casing from a Keltec9. The debris field at the crime scene tells it own story, and it is not Zimmerman's.

(06-04-2013, 11:42 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 11:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]That will be what the jury is asked to decide. Did T have the right to attack Z (and all we have is Z's version of the story)?

No the most important thing the jury will have to decide is IF the defence can convince the jury that T attacked Z did Z have the right to shoot and kill him in response?

Deciding whether a teenager had the right to break the nose of a guy who was following him is a far less important a question than deciding whether a grown man had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager.

What the Jury will have to decide on is whether or not Z was inside the law or not as it applies to self defense and SYG. The SYG part of the law here is vague enough that Z can probably make the case that he is good to go.
There is nothing in the law preventing Z from following the kid, A case can be made that in context it was his duty to do so. There are plenty of things in there that proscribe the kid from attacking someone who is simply following him. Following is not assault, touching is. Z contends that T made the first physical move, the evidence can support that but we may never know for sure.
There is only 1 witness, he is a fool, but his story is the only one to tell.

All that said, T did have all kinds of rights too, he had the perfectly legitimate right to be on the street at whatever time he wanted, he had the right to go buy skittles and whatever he wanted, he had the right to be safe in doing so, no issues with any of that.

Then he crosses paths with Z and the whole thing runs off the rail and T is dead.
Z may have been Profiling, probably was, most people do one way or another. Z may have been a wannabe cop, evidence seems to support that. Don't know if Z was a "gun nut" or not, haven't seen anything except speculation one way or the other. Z may have been suffering to testosterone poisoning, he may not have listened to the 911 dispatcher. None of that is illegal, neither is stupidity.
At some point T&Z mixed it up and according to Z he ended up on the bottom with T trying to take his weapon.
Its pretty easy to see that at that point in time Z was afraid for his life.
You ever had a 180 lb hood rat trying to beat you down? I can see it. At that point. Z managed to free his weapon and fired one time, close range, kill shot.

I am not saying what Z did was right, he made Many mistakes, but he didn't break any laws up to the point where he pulled the trigger.
T didn't break any laws either up to the point that he allegedly hit Z. It was stupid of him to attack Z if thats what he did. It was stupid to run and hide, he was innocent up to that point.
That Point is where the trial will focus.
Doesn't matter at all that an attacker is armed or not, if the person being attacked believes he or she is imminent danger to life or limb, Deadly force is legal.

Trayvon Martin was 5'11" and 155 lbs.
His nickname was Slimm.

George Zimmerman was 5'8" and 205 lbs.
His nickname was tugboat.

I suppose there is a reason why wrestlers are classed by weight, and not height.

(06-04-2013, 12:25 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]No the most important thing the jury will have to decide is IF the defence can convince the jury that T attacked Z did Z have the right to shoot and kill him in response?

Deciding whether a teenager had the right to break the nose of a guy who was following him is a far less important a question than deciding whether a grown man had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager.

What the Jury will have to decide on is whether or not Z was inside the law or not as it applies to self defense and SYG. The SYG part of the law here is vague enough that Z can probably make the case that he is good to go.
There is nothing in the law preventing Z from following the kid, A case can be made that in context it was his duty to do so. There are plenty of things in there that proscribe the kid from attacking someone who is simply following him. Following is not assault, touching is. Z contends that T made the first physical move, the evidence can support that but we may never know for sure.
There is only 1 witness, he is a fool, but his story is the only one to tell.

All that said, T did have all kinds of rights too, he had the perfectly legitimate right to be on the street at whatever time he wanted, he had the right to go buy skittles and whatever he wanted, he had the right to be safe in doing so, no issues with any of that.

Then he crosses paths with Z and the whole thing runs off the rail and T is dead.
Z may have been Profiling, probably was, most people do one way or another. Z may have been a wannabe cop, evidence seems to support that. Don't know if Z was a "gun nut" or not, haven't seen anything except speculation one way or the other. Z may have been suffering to testosterone poisoning, he may not have listened to the 911 dispatcher. None of that is illegal, neither is stupidity.
At some point T&Z mixed it up and according to Z he ended up on the bottom with T trying to take his weapon.
Its pretty easy to see that at that point in time Z was afraid for his life.
You ever had a 180 lb hood rat trying to beat you down? I can see it. At that point. Z managed to free his weapon and fired one time, close range, kill shot.

I am not saying what Z did was right, he made Many mistakes, but he didn't break any laws up to the point where he pulled the trigger.
T didn't break any laws either up to the point that he allegedly hit Z. It was stupid of him to attack Z if thats what he did. It was stupid to run and hide, he was innocent up to that point.
That Point is where the trial will focus.
Doesn't matter at all that an attacker is armed or not, if the person being attacked believes he or she is imminent danger to life or limb, Deadly force is legal.
[/quote]

That is a good post.

I don't pretend to be the voice of reason, I'm not. I don't like George & it colors how I feel about all this.

Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal leading up to the shooting but many of his actions leading up the shooting were provocative, provocative enough for Martin to confront him in the first place. A grown man carrying a gun following a teenager even though police dispatch told him to back the fuck off? If that isn't provocative behaviour then I honestly don't know what is.

And let's not forget zimmerman could have quite easily diffused the situation when Martin confronted him he could have said “I work for the local neighbourhood watch I was just concerned that you might be up to no good ok? We've had a few burglaries in the area and I wasn't sure what you were doing that's all”.

I'm pretty confident Martin would have backed down.

(06-04-2013, 12:58 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Trayvon Martin was 5'11" and 155 lbs.
His nickname was Slimm.

George Zimmerman was 5'8" and 205 lbs.
His nickname was tugboat.

I suppose there is a reason why wrestlers are classed by weight, and not height.

Your a pretty smart guy, you going to tell me that you believe size will win every time?
At one time I was about 225 and thought nothing of taking on 300lb football players.
Tactics, skills and surprise play a Much bigger part.
In wrestling 2 opponents are aware of each other, theoretically have close to the same skills, Weight and height play a much bigger part.

Adub is a dude? Huh.

ETA: T was 6 inches taller than me but outweighed me by just 30lbs.

(06-04-2013, 01:05 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 12:25 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]What the Jury will have to decide on is whether or not Z was inside the law or not as it applies to self defense and SYG. The SYG part of the law here is vague enough that Z can probably make the case that he is good to go.

That is a good post.

I don't pretend to be the voice of reason, I'm not. I don't like George & it colors how I feel about all this.

Too bad he missed the part where George decided to forego SYG. I'm sure Zimmerman will get his self-defense jury instruction, but, he is going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury that he was not the initial aggressor.

George's attorney has already thrown out to the media two little tidbits.

One, in order for Trayvon to be considered the initial aggressor, the defense has to show evidence that Trayvon had a propensity for violence. And text messages and fight videos will not be enough.

And two, that the yells for help, if George, indicate that George was trying to retreat.

So why is O'Mara implying, and not just through the media, but also through discovery, that George had a duty to retreat? SYG gives George no duty to retreat. But yet, O'Mara wants to prove that the big fat liar tried to retreat, and was prevented from doing so by the violent prone thug that George outweighed by 50lbs?

The reason is simple, the initial aggressor does have a duty to retreat. And O'Mara knows that George was the initial aggressor.

(06-03-2013, 09:07 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2013, 08:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Trial begins one week from today.

Maybe Judge Nelson will rule on the following tomorrow.

1. Expert voice analysts to testify regarding screams in background of witness 911 calls - in or out?
Prosecution wants them at trial, Defense wants them excluded. Frye hearing tomorrow.

The fact that the defense wants that analysis precluded indicates to me that they're worried they'll lose that argument.

So far, we've heard from experts that have opined that the voice crying for help or to stop are the younger of the two men, and/or not Zimmerman. Latest expert opinion claims he hears two voices on the tape. These opinions benefit the state.

Haven't heard anything about an expert witness that claims the distressed voice was George's or the older of the two men. If the defense has one, that's not been revealed. Since the defense has shown its favorable cards to the public/media, I think they're scrambling to find a counter expert opinion and desperately hoping Nelson excludes the voice analysts. JMO.

The Frye Hearing regarding the voice analysts is actually scheduled for Thursday or Friday, not today. The jury and voice analyst rulings are bumping right up against trial start date...

(06-04-2013, 01:21 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Adub is a dude? Huh.

ETA: T was 6 inches taller than me but outweighed me by just 30lbs.

Evidently this dude does not know much about wrestling. I'll admit it. And admit that Trayvon and George were wrestling around on the ground. Or struggling. But no way in hell did Trayvon see George's little black gun holstered inside his waist, in the dark, while Trayvon was on top and George was doing the shimmy shimmy. No way.

Here's a link to nearly 60 evidence photographs in the case, including pictures of Zimmerman, the gun, clothing worn by both Martin and Zimmerman, the grassy area and the sidewalk where the altercation took place, etc...

http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2013/06/0...-zimmerman