On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote: What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means.
It's pathetic.
to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help?
All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
They have the GF's testimony that Zimmerman instigated
They have zimmerman's testimony that he shot Martin
They have the recorded 911 call where Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.
Intent => Instigation => gun death
John Good's testimony did not see the instigation, just the fight as it was already happening. None of the witnesses save the GF witnessed what happened before the start of the fight.
The yelling for help is contested both by families and by experts.
The wounds are contested by experts.
We simply have the GF telling us that Zimmerman instigated, and we have John Good telling Trayvon to stop and Trayvon not stopping. No matter who was at fault/started the fight, John Good was the help that should have ended it. Trayvon continuing to hit Zimmerman after Good shows up means that the board is reset and Trayvon is now on the offensive.
First of all, even if her testimony is to be trusted, she never said that Zimmerman instigated, she just tried to imply it with saying she heard Trayvon say "a little get off, get off" which could still mean a number of things besides GZ instigating the fight. Also worth mentioning that she ADDED this to her original story later, which alone makes her whole testimony suspicious.
Nobody is denying he shot Martin.
Following from a distance to keep an eye on his whereabouts, so what? Doesn't prove he ran up face-to-face to Trayvon AND attacked Martin.
His intent was to protect his neighborhood from criminals, nowhere is there any sign that he instigated the fight (and he didn't even strike Martin once)
Of course the families are going to contest "who was yelling for help" and the experts couldn't identify who the voices were, nobody said "it definitely 100% was not George Zimmerman".
The wounds are consistent with what happened and unless you want to say George injured himself on purpose, there is no arguing that Trayvon was the one who caused them (and his abrasian on his hand is proof of this...as well as John Good's testimony)
The question was asked why the prosecution is pursuing.
I'm simply telling them the evidence presented.
Trayvon intended to go home and eat skittles. Zimmerman intended to be the town superhero.
It resulted with zimmerman shooting some kid walking home.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
The rest of the evidence have experts/family on both sides countering each other. The only ones without someone to refute them is Rachael and John.
But if John yelled at them to stop and Travyon did not stop; then Rachael's testimony means little since even if it was definitively proven that recording was Martin yelling for help, help did arrive in the form of John Good. Martin refused the help and continued attacking, making what happens next in the timeline (the shooting) self defense.
On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote: What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means.
It's pathetic.
to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help?
All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
They have the GF's testimony that Zimmerman instigated
They have zimmerman's testimony that he shot Martin
They have the recorded 911 call where Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.
Intent => Instigation => gun death
John Good's testimony did not see the instigation, just the fight as it was already happening. None of the witnesses save the GF witnessed what happened before the start of the fight.
The yelling for help is contested both by families and by experts.
The wounds are contested by experts.
We simply have the GF telling us that Zimmerman instigated, and we have John Good telling Trayvon to stop and Trayvon not stopping. No matter who was at fault/started the fight, John Good was the help that should have ended it. Trayvon continuing to hit Zimmerman after Good shows up means that the board is reset and Trayvon is now on the offensive.
First of all, even if her testimony is to be trusted, she never said that Zimmerman instigated, she just tried to imply it with saying she heard Trayvon say "a little get off, get off" which could still mean a number of things besides GZ instigating the fight. Also worth mentioning that she ADDED this to her original story later, which alone makes her whole testimony suspicious.
Nobody is denying he shot Martin.
Following from a distance to keep an eye on his whereabouts, so what? Doesn't prove he ran up face-to-face to Trayvon AND attacked Martin.
His intent was to protect his neighborhood from criminals, nowhere is there any sign that he instigated the fight (and he didn't even strike Martin once)
Of course the families are going to contest "who was yelling for help" and the experts couldn't identify who the voices were, nobody said "it definitely 100% was not George Zimmerman".
The wounds are consistent with what happened and unless you want to say George injured himself on purpose, there is no arguing that Trayvon was the one who caused them (and his abrasian on his hand is proof of this...as well as John Good's testimony)
The question was asked why the prosecution is pursuing.
I'm simply telling them the evidence presented.
Trayvon intended to go home and eat skittles. Zimmerman intended to be the town superhero.
It resulted with zimmerman shooting some kid walking home.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
The rest of the evidence have experts/family on both sides countering each other. The only ones without someone to refute them is Rachael and John.
But if John yelled at them to stop and Travyon did not stop; then Rachael's testimony means little since even if it was definitively proven that recording was Martin yelling for help, help did arrive in the form of John Good. Martin refused the help and continued attacking, making what happens next in the timeline (the shooting) self defense.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
I sure hope the jury has more common sense than you to know her statement of Zimmerman attacking Trayvon is garbage and her testimony was not consistent with original story, which NEVER showed such a situation.
There is ZERO evidence zimmerman ever made any physical contact with Trayvon. Zero damage, no visual witness of zimmerman swinging. nothing.
On July 11 2013 05:33 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. i want to see the ATF officer come in and say Zimmerman beat my ass.
lmao.
edit: actually, that may also bring out the ridiculous lengths to which the prosecution is stretching their case.
It would also refute the Gym owner's testimony of Zimmerman's fighting ability.
If Zimmerman had done anything significant to ANY officer of the law, it would not have been reduced to misdemeanor and ultimately run though pre-trial diversion, which is ultimately resulted in no conviction whatsoever. If there were any seriousness to the battery, it wouldn't have played out like that.
On July 11 2013 05:40 jeremycafe wrote: If she allows the ATF officer in... that HAS to allow all of trayvon's history.
its not a tit for tat. prosecutor is arguing the defense opened the door re zimmerman's character. if the defense did then the evidence comes in. defense has alleged prosecutor opened the door on trayvon's history, but the court denied it saying they didnt basically.
On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote: What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means.
It's pathetic.
to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help?
All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
They have the GF's testimony that Zimmerman instigated
They have zimmerman's testimony that he shot Martin
They have the recorded 911 call where Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.
Intent => Instigation => gun death
John Good's testimony did not see the instigation, just the fight as it was already happening. None of the witnesses save the GF witnessed what happened before the start of the fight.
The yelling for help is contested both by families and by experts.
The wounds are contested by experts.
We simply have the GF telling us that Zimmerman instigated, and we have John Good telling Trayvon to stop and Trayvon not stopping. No matter who was at fault/started the fight, John Good was the help that should have ended it. Trayvon continuing to hit Zimmerman after Good shows up means that the board is reset and Trayvon is now on the offensive.
First of all, even if her testimony is to be trusted, she never said that Zimmerman instigated, she just tried to imply it with saying she heard Trayvon say "a little get off, get off" which could still mean a number of things besides GZ instigating the fight. Also worth mentioning that she ADDED this to her original story later, which alone makes her whole testimony suspicious.
Nobody is denying he shot Martin.
Following from a distance to keep an eye on his whereabouts, so what? Doesn't prove he ran up face-to-face to Trayvon AND attacked Martin.
His intent was to protect his neighborhood from criminals, nowhere is there any sign that he instigated the fight (and he didn't even strike Martin once)
Of course the families are going to contest "who was yelling for help" and the experts couldn't identify who the voices were, nobody said "it definitely 100% was not George Zimmerman".
The wounds are consistent with what happened and unless you want to say George injured himself on purpose, there is no arguing that Trayvon was the one who caused them (and his abrasian on his hand is proof of this...as well as John Good's testimony)
The question was asked why the prosecution is pursuing.
I'm simply telling them the evidence presented.
Trayvon intended to go home and eat skittles. Zimmerman intended to be the town superhero.
It resulted with zimmerman shooting some kid walking home.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
The rest of the evidence have experts/family on both sides countering each other. The only ones without someone to refute them is Rachael and John.
But if John yelled at them to stop and Travyon did not stop; then Rachael's testimony means little since even if it was definitively proven that recording was Martin yelling for help, help did arrive in the form of John Good. Martin refused the help and continued attacking, making what happens next in the timeline (the shooting) self defense.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
I sure hope the jury has more common sense than you to know her statement of Zimmerman attacking Trayvon is garbage and her testimony was not consistent with original story, which NEVER showed such a situation.
There is ZERO evidence zimmerman ever made any physical contact with Trayvon. Zero damage, no visual witness of zimmerman swinging. nothing.
Far as I remember, she heard him say "why are you following me?" with Zimmerman saying "What are you doing here?" then she heard "Get off. Get off" and it ended. Hard to tell what happened between Zimmerman talking and the get off comment.
On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote: What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means.
It's pathetic.
to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help?
All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
They have the GF's testimony that Zimmerman instigated
They have zimmerman's testimony that he shot Martin
They have the recorded 911 call where Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.
Intent => Instigation => gun death
John Good's testimony did not see the instigation, just the fight as it was already happening. None of the witnesses save the GF witnessed what happened before the start of the fight.
The yelling for help is contested both by families and by experts.
The wounds are contested by experts.
We simply have the GF telling us that Zimmerman instigated, and we have John Good telling Trayvon to stop and Trayvon not stopping. No matter who was at fault/started the fight, John Good was the help that should have ended it. Trayvon continuing to hit Zimmerman after Good shows up means that the board is reset and Trayvon is now on the offensive.
First of all, even if her testimony is to be trusted, she never said that Zimmerman instigated, she just tried to imply it with saying she heard Trayvon say "a little get off, get off" which could still mean a number of things besides GZ instigating the fight. Also worth mentioning that she ADDED this to her original story later, which alone makes her whole testimony suspicious.
Nobody is denying he shot Martin.
Following from a distance to keep an eye on his whereabouts, so what? Doesn't prove he ran up face-to-face to Trayvon AND attacked Martin.
His intent was to protect his neighborhood from criminals, nowhere is there any sign that he instigated the fight (and he didn't even strike Martin once)
Of course the families are going to contest "who was yelling for help" and the experts couldn't identify who the voices were, nobody said "it definitely 100% was not George Zimmerman".
The wounds are consistent with what happened and unless you want to say George injured himself on purpose, there is no arguing that Trayvon was the one who caused them (and his abrasian on his hand is proof of this...as well as John Good's testimony)
The question was asked why the prosecution is pursuing.
I'm simply telling them the evidence presented.
Trayvon intended to go home and eat skittles. Zimmerman intended to be the town superhero.
It resulted with zimmerman shooting some kid walking home.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
The rest of the evidence have experts/family on both sides countering each other. The only ones without someone to refute them is Rachael and John.
But if John yelled at them to stop and Travyon did not stop; then Rachael's testimony means little since even if it was definitively proven that recording was Martin yelling for help, help did arrive in the form of John Good. Martin refused the help and continued attacking, making what happens next in the timeline (the shooting) self defense.
The evidence so far is that Zimmerman attacks Trayvon (according to Rachael) and in the scuffle Trayvon gets the upper hand (John), Mr. Good tells Trayvon to stop--Trayvon would not, leading to self defense gunshot.
I sure hope the jury has more common sense than you to know her statement of Zimmerman attacking Trayvon is garbage and her testimony was not consistent with original story, which NEVER showed such a situation.
There is ZERO evidence zimmerman ever made any physical contact with Trayvon. Zero damage, no visual witness of zimmerman swinging. nothing.
The original question was what is the narrative of the prosecution. That is their narrative right now.
Rachael and John Good were witnesses brought in by the prosecution, this is their narrative that is being weaved. This is the picture they had to work with.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
I was bravely ignoring this issue for a year on TL, but couldn't stand the temptation today and read the whole wiki article on the case. Not guilty is my verdict. The part that fully convinced me was the following
In early April, an anonymous letter to the NAACP, which was signed "A Concerned Zimmerman Family Member," said Zimmerman had been one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer. Zimmerman reportedly distributed fliers in the black community trying to get others involved too, and helped organize a January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum to protest the incident.[312] Zimmerman's father confirmed his son's efforts on Ware's behalf.[313]
In May, the Miami Herald secured an audiotape of the January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum. On the audiotape, Zimmerman was heard criticizing the conduct of the Sanford Police Department in the Ware case. Zimmerman criticized former chief, Brian Tooley, and said Tooley had engaged in a "cover-up" and that he should lose his pension. He also said he'd been on ride-alongs with Sanford police where he found them to be lazy. The Herald also reported that it had contacted five out of six black churches where Zimmerman was reported to have distributed fliers on the Ware beating, however no one recalled receiving them
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Her decision to disallow the tweets is in agreement with current court practices.
Here is a former (now celebrity) FL judge who agrees with her:
EPT
