Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 217

On July 02 2013 01:21 xDaunt wrote:

Watch the twitter feed at www.legalinsurrection.com.

On July 02 2013 01:25 Knighthawkbro wrote:


I got the actually twitter feed here
https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/zimmerman-trial

On July 02 2013 01:26 xDaunt wrote:

I suck at twitter. But yes, that's the same feed.

On July 02 2013 01:43 woody60707 wrote:
When the state was driving home the fact that Zimmerman used the word suspect, at the end he ask the officer, (and I can't remember the question exactly, but it was along the lines of "would cops have called Martin a suspect", and she answered yes, if we thought he might if committed a crime.

I was only half listening, that's why I'm asking if I heard it right.

On July 02 2013 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:



No you did not hear it right. She was asked if "suspect" is how LEO's would describe someone they presumed to be a suspect in a crime

On July 02 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:
Is there not a way to get TL to show post timestamps in my local time instead of Korea time ?

On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate.

On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate.

On July 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I keep waiting for the State to put on something that even remotely resembles compelling evidence, but it just hasn't come yet. The takeaway from the admission of Zimmerman's statements so far is that they are entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony -- particularly the testimony of Good.

On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:


First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida.

On July 02 2013 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:



With the inconsistencies in GZ's various accounts and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses (especially considering the conditions of the night in question), the door is definitely wide open for the prosecution to chip away at GZ's reasonable doubt.

On July 02 2013 02:21 xDaunt wrote:

You have it ass backwards. The State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a good thing for Zimmerman. The existence of reasonable doubt means he walks. Pointing out inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements (which appear very minor so far) doesn't really get the State anywhere. It's helpful to the extent that it undermines Zimmerman's credibility. However, it is no where near enough to secure a conviction, because the end result is that all it does is create more reasonable doubt.

On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:

Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything.

On July 02 2013 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:



I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the reasonable doubt GZ needs to be found not guilty is still vulnerable due to his inconsistent statements (See Breakdown on Pg 216), and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses to correctly identify someone.