Zimmerman sues NBC

[cannabineer]

What corner? Don't pretend Martin had no choice except to attack. All Zimmerman did was ask him a quesstion.

Do you know this to be fact? One of the big things I got from the whole story as it unfolded was that we really do not know what happened until Trayvon was dead. Maybe my info is obsolete, but we have only Zimm's account, and testimony from someone who may have heard some things.

Martin wasn't "defending" himself, he was attacking. And there were witnesses to at least some of the fight. And the physical evidence collaborates Zimmerman's statements. To demand crucifixion to satisfy your notion of "Social Justice" is just plain wrong. That you believe attempted murder is justified in this situation clearly disqualifies you to judge anybody.

Am I demanding crucifixion? (Show me where.) What I have seen of Zimmerman's story stinks. I don't merely admit ... I declare that what i know of this case is limited and inconclusive. I know of only one slaying ... committed by the defendant. i have no reliable info at all that Martin attacked, or that he attempted murder upon Zimm. If you do, present it please, as it will be a refreshing break from all the endlessly recursive efforts to arrive at a conclusion based on circumstantial and character-based arguings. cn

 

[Red1966]

So it appears that Martin LEFT Sandy Green's townhouse to confront and assault Zimmerman. Case closed.

 

[desert dude]

In your opinion, what are the established facts in the case?

Here is mine:

1) Two minorities had an altercation and one got fatally shot.
2) The living one has cuts, bruises, and bleeding.

As far as I can tell there is no evidence to the contrary of what Zimmerman says, just wild guesses as to alternatives. I think the absolute best case scenario for the prosecution is that there is a couple black or anti gun people on the jury and they end up with a mistrial. There is no way you are going to get 12 fair people to vote guilty on this. You might get one to vote guilty each time. I guess the question becomes how many times will the state try Zimmerman for a crime they could never hope to convict him for before they get bored or he gets a 'innocent' verdict?

I agree with this completely. I too think that the best the prosecutor will do is get a hung jury. There is no way I can see a conviction here.

 

[cannabineer]

In your opinion, what are the established facts in the case?

Here is mine:

1) Two minorities had an altercation and one got fatally shot.
2) The living one has cuts, bruises, and bleeding.

As far as I can tell there is no evidence to the contrary of what Zimmerman says, just wild guesses as to alternatives. I think the absolute best case scenario for the prosecution is that there is a couple black or anti gun people on the jury and they end up with a mistrial. There is no way you are going to get 12 fair people to vote guilty on this. You might get one to vote guilty each time. I guess the question becomes how many times will the state try Zimmerman for a crime they could never hope to convict him for before they get bored or he gets a 'innocent' verdict?

On the evidence I have seen in the public domain, I can neither convict nor clear Zimmerman. I would hope that a jury has access to much more meaningful detail. It could break the case either way ... or leave it the muddle that it is.

What i do think is established at this point is that Zimmerman chased Trayvon, who was not seeking a confrontation.
The other thing that is established is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead at point-blank range.
It's the in-between stuff that is not known to anyone here, and that is what I, if I were a juror, would want presented by the lawyers. cn

 

[desert dude]

On the evidence I have seen in the public domain, I can neither convict nor clear Zimmerman. I would hope that a jury has access to much more meaningful detail. It could break the case either way ... or leave it the muddle that it is.

What i do think is established at this point is that Zimmerman chased Trayvon, who was not seeking a confrontation.
The other thing that is established is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead at point-blank range.
It's the in-between stuff that is not known to anyone here, and that is what I, if I were a juror, would want presented by the lawyers. cn

How would you, as a juror, interpret Zimmerman's injuries and Martin's only injuries, his skinned up knuckles?

 

[Red1966]

Do you know this to be fact? One of the big things I got from the whole story as it unfolded was that we really do not know what happened until Trayvon was dead. Maybe my info is obsolete, but we have only Zimm's account, and testimony from someone who may have heard some things. Am I demanding crucifixion? (Show me where.) What I have seen of Zimmerman's story stinks. I don't merely admit ... I declare that what i know of this case is limited and inconclusive. I know of only one slaying ... committed by the defendant. i have no reliable info at all that Martin attacked, or that he attempted murder upon Zimm. If you do, present it please, as it will be a refreshing break from all the endlessly recursive efforts to arrive at a conclusion based on circumstantial and character-based arguings. cn

Odd that you state we only have Zimmerman's account. Ample physical and eye witness evidence exist. yet you pretend that "we have only Zimm's account". Those are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[Detbman]

all young black males are all crooks that's what the world thinks everybody in the world thinks that now

 

[cannabineer]

How would you, as a juror, interpret Zimmerman's injuries and Martin's skinned up knuckles?

Not being on the jury, I don't have access to the rest of the evidence. If you wish to argue that Z shot T in self-degfense, then it supports that T punched Z in the same spirit. Not conclusive.

Odd that you state we only have Zimmerman's account. Ample physical and eye witness evidence exist. yet you pretend that "we have only Zimm's account". Those are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Remember the Trayvan thread? There was no "ample evidence" then. If any has come to light since then, a link please. Afaik nobody but Z saw the critical confrontation. You seem too happy to jump to the conclusion that I am gunning for Z in this matter. Convince me, but you need to use better "evidence". So far I have been convinced that Z and T did indeed tussle. cn

 

[desert dude]

Not being on the jury, I don't have access to the rest of the evidence. If you wish to argue that Z shot T in self-degfense, then it supports that T punched Z in the same spirit. Not conclusive.


Remember the Trayvan thread? There was no "ample evidence" then. If any has come to light since then, a link please. Afaik nobody but Z saw the critical confrontation. You seem too happy to jump to the conclusion that I am gunning for Z in this matter. Convince me, but you need to use better "evidence". So far I have been convinced that Z and T did indeed tussle. cn

So, based on what you know of the facts you would be forced to acquit Zimmerman? Me too.

 

[Carthoris]

Interestingly, the 7-11 was about a half mile away from the house Martin was staying at, it took him about 40 minutes to walk from the gas station to the place where Zimmerman started following him. So... 40 minutes to walk half a mile. The cameras at the 7-11 show three men walking in just after Martin walks out of the 7-11 with 2 dollar bills. Martin doesn't immediately leave the store. One of the three men has two dollar dollar bills in his hand. He buys two blunts, and then decides to get a third. He takes his wallet out to get money. He walks out of the store. Martin is seen walking away talking to someone as he goes a little bit later. Looks like a straw purchase to me.

Did Martin roll himself a blunt or two on the 40 minute walk back to his house and smoke one of them?

 

[cannabineer]

So, based on what you know of the facts you would be forced to acquit Zimmerman? Me too.

I have been saying that from day one. cn

 

[Carthoris]

Not being on the jury, I don't have access to the rest of the evidence. If you wish to argue that Z shot T in self-degfense, then it supports that T punched Z in the same spirit. Not conclusive.


Remember the Trayvan thread? There was no "ample evidence" then. If any has come to light since then, a link please. Afaik nobody but Z saw the critical confrontation. You seem too happy to jump to the conclusion that I am gunning for Z in this matter. Convince me, but you need to use better "evidence". So far I have been convinced that Z and T did indeed tussle. cn

One eye witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating his ass before he went to call 911, and when he came back Martin was dead.

 

[Detbman]

Fuck zipperman the dude was just a kid or is it okay just to Kill black kids.

 

[Carthoris]

Fuck zipperman the dude was just a kid or is it okay just to Kill black kids.

Is it ok for 17 year old 'kids' to walk around like ghetto thugs in the rain at night smoking weed and jumping spanish people who are watching out for the neighborhood?

 

[cannabineer]

One eye witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating his ass before he went to call 911, and when he came back Martin was dead.

I do not know if that testimony is correct. Seeing how polarized the topic has been here, an uncorroborated eyewitness has a lot of power. Allow me to classify this as not established. cn

 

[desert dude]

Fuck zipperman the dude was just a kid or is it okay just to Kill black kids.

It is OK to kill a person in self defense, even a black person, even a young black person. Or is OK for black kids to murder with impunity?

 

[Carthoris]

I do not know if that testimony is correct. Seeing how polarized the topic has been here, an uncorroborated eyewitness has a lot of power. Allow me to classify this as not established. cn

Seriously? Without evidence to the contrary, you have to take this witness at his word.

 

[cannabineer]

Seriously? Without evidence to the contrary, you have to take this witness at his word.

A single uncorroborated witness? No. I do not. That's why "at least two eyewitnesses" is a mainstay of jurisprudence here in the States. Analogy: I would have to take Zimmerman at his word then. Since it has been shown that his story kept changing, it would not be flippant to ask "which one?" cn

 

[Carthoris]

I do not know if that testimony is correct. Seeing how polarized the topic has been here, an uncorroborated eyewitness has a lot of power. Allow me to classify this as not established. cn

lol.

Cannabineer: "What did you eat for lunch, Carthoris."
Carthoris : "Lamb Madras."
Cannabineer: "I don't believe you. Was there any witnesses?"
Carthoris : "Just the owner, everyone else was gone for the day."
Cannabineer: "I don't know if you are telling the truth, he could be lying too."

If you can give a reason why the witness is lying, then I can accept that. However, just saying the witness isn't reliable because he is the only witness is pretty odd.

 

[Carthoris]

lol.

Cannabineer: "What did you eat for lunch, Carthoris."
Carthoris : "Lamb Madras."
Cannabineer: "I don't believe you. Was there any witnesses?"
Carthoris : "Just the owner, everyone else was gone for the day."
Cannabineer: "I don't know if you are telling the truth, he could be lying too."

If you can give a reason why the witness is lying, then I can accept that. However, just saying the witness isn't reliable because he is the only witness is pretty odd.

Carthoris: "Wait... maybe I had the Butter Lamb....."

haha