trayvan martin

doc111

Well-Known Member
versus you, who just made yourself look like an idiot.

no one knows who attacked who, the prosecution has already tipped their hat on this.
If the prosecution freely admits they don't know who attacked who, then doesn't that just dip their entire case in reasonable doubt? OR is the state going to do something similar to what they did with the Casey Anthony trial and just try to advance their "theory" in the absence of any REAL evidence? It didn't work out so well! How and WHY would they even bother trying a case where the defendant will try to claim "self defense" or "stand your ground" when they can't even say for sure who attacked who? Doesn't this entire case pretty much hinge on who attacked who first? Didn't they learn anything last year?
 

Corso312

Well-Known Member
not really imo....if i was a juror and i had ..not sure who threw first punch..mutt zimm clearly initiated everything ...zimm is guilty... i think zimm pulled his piece and got scared and shot when martin went for the gun...martin feared (rightfully so) for his life ..zimm is the aggressor .....and as far a casey anthony the state fucked by not saying one simple phrase to the simpleton hay seeds in florida..."there is not a videotape of casey anthony committing this awful crime..but she did it no doubt..connect the dots it is very clear...reasonable doubt does not mean no eye witnesses ....
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
what if tray did attack him you will all look like idiots
Not really. I would attack someone following me and yelling. The real question is did Zimm's actions instigate the altercation or try to minimize it. If the prosecution can prove that Zimmy had a viable retreat BEFORE he confronted TM, he's done. If the jury feels TM attacked out of aggression, not self defense, GZ walks.

Perhaps when TM is saying, "Help." Zimmerman felt bad and shot him like a horse? To a hunter, that's help. Right? If you downed a dear, and it was still yelling and kicking, you'd "Help it out", right?

:spew:

P.S. This is real life, not law. Don't quote my post and then Florida Law. Jurors are human. You can strike testimony from paper, not the human brain.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
not really imo....if i was a juror and i had ..not sure who threw first punch..mutt zimm clearly initiated everything ...zimm is guilty... i think zimm pulled his piece and got scared and shot when martin went for the gun...martin feared (rightfully so) for his life ..zimm is the aggressor .....and as far a casey anthony the state fucked by not saying one simple phrase to the simpleton hay seeds in florida..."there is not a videotape of casey anthony committing this awful crime..but she did it no doubt..connect the dots it is very clear...reasonable doubt does not mean no eye witnesses ....
I realize this, but without knowing who attacked who first I don't think a jury will be able to convict. Sorry, he may very well be guilty but a lot of assumptions are being made by people who have no clue what happened. It seems like people are making these assumptions based on emotions. I find this troubling.

Zimmbomb stepped out of his truck? Why?


Case closed sluts
Why not? Does he not have the right to step out of his truck? I don't really understand this statement.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I would LOVE to see the state PROVE that Zimmerman had the intent of killing Martin.

I also love when people say things like " I would attack him if he was following and yelling".
You sure would, and you would be the one going to jail and the one that loses a civil court case when you get sued for the aggressive act. A concerned citizen who is only trying to protect his own property and the property of his neighbors has every right in the world to ask anyone he wants what the fuck they are doing in the neighborhood. Every right. That person being asked has ZERO right to attack that inquiring person, No right whatsoever.

Zimmerman walks. As he should

Avenue of escape? Zimmerman didn't need to use any avenue of escape, that is what the whole SYG law is all about.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
SYG doestn apply as he pursued martin . . . lmfao why are people still quoting syg . .. if it applies to anyone its the dead 17 yr old kid who was walking home from 7 - 11 with his purchases
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
SYG doestn apply as he pursued martin . . . lmfao why are people still quoting syg . .. if it applies to anyone its the dead 17 yr old kid who was walking home from 7 - 11 with his purchases
SYG totally 100% applies, you have no duty to restrict yourself from doing things that there is no law against. Is there a law in Florida which makes it a crime to follow a person and ask questions? No? Then SYG applies.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
SYG totally 100% applies, you have no duty to restrict yourself from doing things that there is no law against. Is there a law in Florida which makes it a crime to follow a person and ask questions? No? Then SYG applies.
actually it could be looked at as harrasment or stalking. I don't know what world you live in where a grown ass man ( not in law-enforcment ) can follow kids around and think that thats not criminal.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
actually it could be looked at as harrasment or stalking. I don't know what world you live in where a grown ass man ( not in law-enforcment ) can follow kids around and think that thats not criminal.
Zimmerman's behavior MIGHT be considered harrasment but falls far short of the burden for stalking. Unfortunately once again, we only have Zimmerman's word to go on here. The prosecution's best chance, most likely, is to attempt to assassinate his credibility. I'm pretty sure we will see all sorts of dirt coming out about Zimmerman in the coming weeks and months.
:joint:


Stalking Law & Legal Definition



A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.
Stalkers target public figures or celebrities, children, and sometimes even complete strangers. But, in most cases, a stalker is someone you know and with whom you have had a relationship. Criminal statutes which can be used in an effort to deter stalking include laws against harassment and assault, as well as a specific stalking law.


Harassment Law & Legal Definition



Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as posters or cartoons.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Zimmerman's behavior MIGHT be considered harrasment but falls far short of the burden for stalking. Unfortunately once again, we only have Zimmerman's word to go on here. The prosecution's best chance, most likely, is to attempt to assassinate his credibility. I'm pretty sure we will see all sorts of dirt coming out about Zimmerman in the coming weeks and months.
:joint:









http://definitions.uslegal.com/
First comes the harrassment....then comes the stalking. Life lost because someone wanted to play wannabe cop. Zimmerman is a real loser.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
First comes the harrassment....then comes the stalking. Life lost because someone wanted to play wannabe cop. Zimmerman is a real loser.
Right, but look at the definition of stalking. Keywords "intentionally and repeatedly". His actions may have been intentional, but they weren't repeated. Stalking laws are mainly for creepers who don't want to let go of an ex or psychos obsessed with a celebrity. Stalking would most likely not apply here. Harassment might.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
the thing is i would have more sympathy for zimmerman and the prediciment hes in if his attitude wasnt so . . . cavaleir about shooting a kid

he really thinks he did the world a justice . . . . . .it is sad when someone can de value and trivalize somones life for suspicion

hes is more than happy to hear that people support him . .. . . .his validation seeking behavior is indicative of someone who knows what they did was wrong as he tries to demonize the kid he killed and elevate himself to hero . .. . . . he knows that kids was threatened by him . . . .and he took advantage of that and he still has zero remorse . . .

and ya the dirt is going to fly . . . .. the man who tried so hard to fit in . . .all his life . . . is going to have his life examined . . . .. its sad that a reasonable arraigment could have been made before he has to drag his family down with him
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
And all trayvon had to do was say i am going to such and such address to my dads house.

That would have been the end of that story.
 
Top