|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 26 2013 11:08 Kaitlin wrote:
Man, I'm a little confused now. I just watched the beginning of HLN's After Dark and they showed the Zimmerman video where he explains what happened at the scene. He described how he was walking back to his car when Trayvon's voice came from behind him. Exactly as he described it, he was walking as that neighbor described, "left to right". I don't understand given Zimmerman's explanation that I just saw why they take such issue with this left to right movement. He seems to have explained he was moving left to right in his own description.
edit:
not only that, but if there was a disturbance in a left to right direction, it would be Trayvon pursuing Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was ahead of him in this left to right direction. I'll be interested to see how this plays out as to why the defense attacked this like they did.
Because she claimed there was left to right movement after the initial noise she heard, unless I misunderstood. But George was knocked to the ground immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the outcome of this trial matter? I mean, does it matter to people beyond emotional observation/spectating? Will other cases look to this one to help decide their own cases?
|
On June 26 2013 16:43 unteqair wrote:
Does the outcome of this trial matter? I mean, does it matter to people beyond emotional observation/spectating? Will other cases look to this one to help decide their own cases?
Only if you're a gun nut who wants to preserve the idea of how invaluable guns are for self defense.
|
Defense just won.
She claims the cry for help was from the less dominate voice. She agrees the dominate voice started the conversation.
Trayvon's girlfriend claims Treyvon started the conversation by yelling why are you following me.
Game over. If they can prove Zimmerman was yelling for help, its over. In my opinion, they just used the state's evidence against them to do just that.
|
This is really fascinating stuff...
|
It is fascinating how crazy this lady is. She is lying about everything...
She claims so much, and the are proving it to all be false. She never opened the window, you can hear her on the phone saying so, but she swears she opened it. She wasn't on the phone at the time of the shot, but she "knows" she was. She claims there were 3 shots..,
what the fuck
|
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb.
|
The one thing that I will say for the State is that they are laying a lot of ground work for a future civil suit against Zimmerman -- not that it matters for their immediate purposes.
|
Makes you wonder how much of that million dollar settlement the parents got went towards assisting the story she just told. Glad the defense busted her through all of her lies. This is a joke. State has nothing but lies to "prove" murder.
|
On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb.
Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down?
|
On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down?
The point is, she said the position of the two never changed. That the person on top was always on top. So after the shot, the person on top remained on top, which makes it impossible for her to have seen what happened.
The positions changed, Trayvon was on top, then was on bottom after being shot. For her story to be true, Zimmerman shot him in the back. Its all a lie.
|
On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down?
I'm not entirely sure if i understand your question correct, but a gun doesn't have the power to "knock you back". That's moviestuff. That's just for the physics, i'm not arguing about any positions etc, just the fact that a gun (not even a shotgun) can knock you back.
|
On June 26 2013 23:42 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down? I'm not entirely sure if i understand your question correct, but a gun doesn't have the power to "knock you back". That's moviestuff. That's just for the physics, i'm not arguing about any positions etc, just the fact that a gun (not even a shotgun) can knock you back.
All good, I misunderstood, jeremy clarified.
|
On June 26 2013 23:43 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:42 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down? I'm not entirely sure if i understand your question correct, but a gun doesn't have the power to "knock you back". That's moviestuff. That's just for the physics, i'm not arguing about any positions etc, just the fact that a gun (not even a shotgun) can knock you back. All good, I misunderstood, jeremy clarified.
Just wanted to be smartassy about something i learned in mythbusters. 
As a sidequestion, what is it the judge says when an objection is made? I know what it means (she agrees), but i can't really make out what she's saying.
|
On June 26 2013 23:45 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:43 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:42 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down? I'm not entirely sure if i understand your question correct, but a gun doesn't have the power to "knock you back". That's moviestuff. That's just for the physics, i'm not arguing about any positions etc, just the fact that a gun (not even a shotgun) can knock you back. All good, I misunderstood, jeremy clarified. Just wanted to be smartassy about something i learned in mythbusters. As a sidequestion, what is it the judge says when an objection is made? I know what it means (she agrees), but i can't really make out what she's saying.
sustained means she agrees and they have to stop.
Overruled means she does not agree and they can continue with their question
edit: corrected wording
|
Ah, abstained, okay. Doens't really make sense in a literal translation to german, no wonder i couldn't make out what she's saying.
Edit: interesting btw, to see how courtstuff is handled in another country, i actually like the idea of livestreams out of the courtroom. Germany should do the same for the high profile nsu process.
|
I think it's "sustained" -_-; Abstained means abstaining from something, or in other words not partaking. Sustained means that a current development is held constant, or is verified.
An all-female jury hardly seems like "an impartial jury of your peers" but I don't mean to be sexist, just seems weird for the judge to choose a jury like that, and for the attorneys to corroborate.
|
On June 26 2013 23:46 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:45 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 23:43 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:42 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 23:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote:
Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest.
It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. Maybe a stupid question, but has it been shown conclusively that the gun used in the shooting would have knocked back Trayvon? Would it be reasonably possible that he was somewhat leaning forward, and just fell straight down? I'm not entirely sure if i understand your question correct, but a gun doesn't have the power to "knock you back". That's moviestuff. That's just for the physics, i'm not arguing about any positions etc, just the fact that a gun (not even a shotgun) can knock you back. All good, I misunderstood, jeremy clarified. Just wanted to be smartassy about something i learned in mythbusters. As a sidequestion, what is it the judge says when an objection is made? I know what it means (she agrees), but i can't really make out what she's saying. abstained means she agrees and they have to stop. Overruled means she does not agree and they can continue with their question
"Sustained" --- not "abstained."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
