|
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 July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^
He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were)
|
On July 06 2013 05:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. If zimmerman is to be believed martin saying "You're gonna die tonight" would be enough to extrapolate danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Well that is why I couched my statement in the term of "If the prosecution's story is 100% correct"
|
I never noticed O'Mara looking down at any notes to present his argument. As opposed to this guy. Impressive IMO. Except for case trials? dunno
|
lol. did he just refer to the Professor rather than the law?
"was his actionable reasonable?" no, son, that is not the law.
|
On July 06 2013 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^ He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were)
I know what he's pointing out, but he's exaggerating way too much for my taste. Maybe that's how it works, i don't know, but it feels weird to me.
Also, since i missed alot over the days/weeks - was there a "picture" or something about the way the bullet went? Like, did it go downwards from the entry wound to the heart, or other directions?
|
On July 06 2013 05:28 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^ He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were) I know what he's pointing out, but he's exaggerating way too much for my taste. Maybe that's how it works, i don't know, but it feels weird to me. Also, since i missed alot over the days/weeks - was there a "picture" or something about the way the bullet went? Like, did it go downwards from the entry wound to the heart, or other directions?
the autopsy report. if i recall correctly, it punctured the hear and lodged into the lung. that may be incorrect though.
|
On July 06 2013 05:25 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 05:07 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:58 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:51 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. Just to be clear there is evidence otherwise. RJ's testimony is contrary to GZ's assertions of the events, you don't have to believe it but the evidence does exist. The girl that doesn't know what racism is? The girl that stated "I dont think thats racist" when speaking about "creepy ass cracker"? Also, she was simply on the phone with him. If she truly thought someone was about to kill her friend she would have called the police. First off, there are reams of thought that will tell you that statement isn't racist. (this could be a result of different operating understandings of what 'racism' is). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture but it is very common in minority communities for the thought of calling the police for 'help' to be the last thing you would do. Merely testifying in a case like this could come with significant social consequences righteous or not. I am not white. I think it's cute that you simply assumed that just because of my statements. "cracker" is a racial slur. The fact that an individual truly thinks the only racist comments are those that are directed at their race alone (presumably what RJ believes as to her knowledge of racial slurs) gives them no credibility. She can't read, she has no clear definition of racism, so how can she testify to the belief of racial profiling? She has no credibility, and was not present for the conflict. All of it is circumstantial and leaves reasonable doubt Didn't say you were white. And the reason one would make a statement that the "cracker" comment was not racist has very little to nothing to do with the race of the person making that statement and every thing to do with the race that has institutional power to reinforce ones prejudices. She can read and actually speaks 3 languages. She does however, not read cursive. She was an ear witness and her testimony is valid as such. You said I have no knowledge of non-white culture. That can only mean I have knowledge of just white culture. How can it be that with those statements you believe I am anything other than white? 3 languages? Really? Which languages are those? English, Broken English, and ebonics? I don't know anyone that can't tell what cursive words actually say. Not recognizing that "creepy ass cracker" is a racial comment in and of itself leaves absolutely no credibility in deciding what is racist and what is not racist. We have an eye witness placing Martin on top of Zimmerman. That goes much further than a girl on the phone that has no idea of what "racism" is thinking she heard GZ start the conflict. "Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture" presuming you understand what those words mean it is clear your first statement is woefully inaccurate. English, Spanish, and Creole actually, this statement demonstrates your bigotry. Plenty of people who deal with handwriting on a daily basis would tell you not being able to read cursive writing is incredibly common (one of the reasons you have to print on most important documents.) Again there are common operating understandings of racism in which the "cracker" comment can logically and reasonably be demonstrated to not be racist. Finally the eye witness has no relevant testimony regarding the initiation of combat. Is there proof of her competency? Cursive is a very basic literacy criteria. A lot of people have illegible cursive but if others could read that same writing then it points to her malice or illiteracy than anything else. If Cracker can reasonable be demonstrated to not be racist than so can nigger (thinking Paula Deen).
Don't even know what you are suggesting regarding her competency?
No it can not based off of the reasoning I am referring too.
To be clear, it is absolutely a prejudiced statement, but not racist as they are delineated separately.
|
On July 06 2013 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^ He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were)
and now we know that the reason there is no evidence is because the Medical Examiner's office didn't take any pictures of his hands or make any note about blood. He was only looking for injury or disease, and having not detected either, ignored the hands. Can't ignore that important fact.
|
On July 06 2013 05:28 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^ He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were) I know what he's pointing out, but he's exaggerating way too much for my taste. Maybe that's how it works, i don't know, but it feels weird to me. Also, since i missed alot over the days/weeks - was there a "picture" or something about the way the bullet went? Like, did it go downwards from the entry wound to the heart, or other directions?
Bullet entry wound is consistent with the bullet going upwards into Martin.
|
On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large.
/facepalm.
It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line.
Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake.
|
On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake.
No reason for a state prosecutor to spend that amount of money on a suit. Especially considering they need many suits.
|
On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake.
Because the way he looks is important, not what he is saying?
|
On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake.
I think a $500 tailored suit is a bit more reasonable he is a DA after all not a Lawyer for hire if you will... 
|
On July 06 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:28 m4inbrain wrote:On July 06 2013 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:
His nose was pinched, really? I mean, i don't believe that he was used as a punching bag as all the "pro-GZ" ppl here want anyone to believe, but pinched in the nose, that kinda blew my mind now. ^^ He is pointing out that if Trayvon was smothering GZ with a broken nose his hands should of been covered in GZ's blood. (which there is no evidence they were) I know what he's pointing out, but he's exaggerating way too much for my taste. Maybe that's how it works, i don't know, but it feels weird to me. Also, since i missed alot over the days/weeks - was there a "picture" or something about the way the bullet went? Like, did it go downwards from the entry wound to the heart, or other directions? the autopsy report. if i recall correctly, it punctured the hear and lodged into the lung. that may be incorrect though.
Okay, well, doesn't really answer what i'm wondering, sadly. I was just trying to "get" how i would shoot someone sitting on me and "doing stuff" (whatever it is, not arguing that). A clear shot through the heart is indeed "lucky", especially because the wound is in the front of his chest (if someone punches/does whatever to me, he would lean forward, i'm thinking).
Maybe i'm picturing it wrong since there's no real indication on how it went, but 0.4 inches or something away from the front of the chest is a weird entrywound in my mind for someone who apparently is leaning over me.
and now we know that the reason there is no evidence is because the Medical Examiner's office didn't take any pictures of his hands or make any note about blood. He was only looking for injury or disease, and having not detected either, ignored the hands. Can't ignore that important fact.
He said there was no blood, otherwise he would've pictured it.
|
i shouldnt have mentioned his suit. its irrelevant. it just bothered me.
|
On July 06 2013 05:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake. No reason for a state prosecutor to spend that amount of money on a suit. Especially considering they need many suits.
I find your positions on suits disgusting and untenable! *shakes fist*
(seriously guys, a tailored suit is a good investment, especially if you have to wear one everyday for a living)
|
On July 06 2013 05:32 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake. Because the way he looks is important, not what he is saying?
I just think being able to present yourself and your argument well should be the prerequisite for trial law and other professions where presentation is a core competency, not a 'bonus' or 'nice-to-have' skill. That's all.
|
On July 06 2013 05:34 m4inbrain wrote:
He said there was no blood, otherwise he would've pictured it.
He testified under cross-examination that he was only looking for injury or disease. I remember that fact clearly. West specifically asked that. Watch the VOD.
|
On July 06 2013 05:34 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:32 Kaitlin wrote:On July 06 2013 05:30 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote:On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote:
Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice.
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. /facepalm. It's not that I'm rooting against Zimmerman, but I can't stand incompetence with a situation like this. A kid got killed and a guy's life is on a line. Spend $2000 on a tailored suit and pretend you give a shit about your job, for fucks sake. No reason for a state prosecutor to spend that amount of money on a suit. Especially considering they need many suits. I find your positions on suits disgusting and untenable! *shakes fist* (seriously guys, a tailored suit is a good investment, especially if you have to wear one everyday for a living)
To be fair, West's tie choice is interesting.
~~
West pretty neatly addressing the interviews.
|
thats a good point by O'Mara. DA is presenting inconsistent theories: 1. Zimmerman is the ultimate murderer who is prepared to present a perfect self defense claim; and 2. Zimmerman is stupid and going around making up lies and going on talk shows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
