just saw it on the anderson cooper interview.
wow.... smh
Printable View
just saw it on the anderson cooper interview.
wow.... smh
Actually, he has probably learned his lesson and would stay in the car next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by InRareForm
Well... yeah. He's kind of proven he's not afraid to shoot someone if the need arises.Quote:
Originally Posted by InRareForm
Shows how well the defense portrayed him as a trustworthy person.Quote:
Originally Posted by InRareForm
sad. i wouldn't want that paranoid/pedo/ kid killing, creep around my family.
Actually shes said that Serino's statement that he found Zimmerman to be trustworthy to be her reason for believing Zimm's story.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Never mind that the judge instructed her to disregard that statement.
Nevermind that his injuries were not consistent with any of the accounts.
Nevermind that it is impossible to both yell for help and be choked at the same time.
Nevermind that there was a 3 minute interval that he conveniently excluded.
Never mind that with the afioremention in mind that a person cannot move 40 feet when he gets knocked down straddled and having your head beaten in before pulling your gun and shooting your assailant.
Nevermind that Martin's lungs were collapsed
Never mind that his story changed from his original statement to the first walkthrough and again between the first and second wakthrough.
Whether or not Zimmerman was trying to be truthful is irrelevant. The physical evidence is mutually exclusive with what he claimed to have happened. But hey she heard what Sorino said and that was that. First quote in my sig.
:lmao I'm sure that the prosecution failed to bring up any of this, being the State's prosecutors and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
:lmao State's witness Sorino putting the nail in the coffin
this case exemplifies why women need to stay in the kitchen, tbh
They did bring up much of that. For example, they had an ME state that the injuries were not consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
The juror admitted to ignoring the judges instructions. I fail to see what is funny about that.
Juror B37 believed Zimmerman was innocent from the get-go and was set in her ways. She doesn't think he profiled Martin at all, that he was acting "suspicious". Smh. I bet she was the most vocal during the deliberations.
You act all knowing and it seems you think you should be judge, prosecution, and jury. You weren't even sitting in the courtroom yet you act like you more than all involved in the trial, including the guy who was there getting beaten and pulled the trigger. Get over yourself already.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
The witness also said the ME had one of the most influential testimonies, explain that one. I don't see why you are so caught up on his injuries. Did you expect Zimmerman to lay there like a dead fish and not resist getting his head bashed in? You can not say Zimmerman didn't fear for his life, it is impossible as you are not him.
I find it funny that one of the state's key witnesses sealed their case, just not in their favor.
Did the fight move 40 yards or did it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
Did Zimmerman only have two small laceration on the back of his head or not?
Did Zimmerman claim that he was being choked right before shooting Martin?
You can try the nonsequitor --and quite frankly stupid-- ad hominem of my tone all you like but you seem to just ignore my refutations of these same regurgitations.
Fuzzy, why would Trayvon, who realized he was being followed and had a working cell phone, not call the police? This is something no one has answered and I just want to know what people think about that.
And yet you continually ignore my questions and refuse to believe Zimmerman feared for his life. You can not say he didn't fear for his life, and as seen here, that is enough for not guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You are just speculating and running on emotion, much like the state.
That's the weird thing about the case. If it was so obvious, to even a guy like Fuzzy, wouldn't really smart lawyers with the support of the country have a slam dunk? I mean, didn't the prosecution have a say in the jury selected?
This could have all been avoided if a certain someone, criminally profiled (notice not racially) or not, wouldn't have sucker punched someone in the face.
The lawyers couldn't figure out the guilty algorithm that Fuzzy has developed to determine verdicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
I don't fault Trayvon overall (although there were obviously better ways to handle the situation), but I don't think it was race driven at all. I do think Zimmerman was also really, really stupid, but I can't say whether or not he feared for his life. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country and a type 1 error vs a type 2 error is a big deal.
So if you are scared then you can shoot someone and get away with it? You clearly don't understand the statute. Zimmerman made his claim for self defense. The reasoning that he gave for being afraid does not bear out. You cannot just say, "I was scared," and that exonerates you. There were plenty of reasons whyQuote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
Physical evidence: The fight went 40 yards from where it started near the sidewalk to where the shooting took place in the grass, witnesses state they saw two people chasing one another in the yard. Zimmerman said he was hit at the sidewalk and Martin was found dead 40 feet from the sidewalk.
Zimmerman's story: Martin jumped out of the bushes sucker punched him, he fell down and Martin jumped on top of him immediately.
My thoughts: amazing how someone can move 40 feet from the concrete where Zimmerman said he was being beaten to 40 yards away absent the witnessed chasing around. It didn't happen like he said it did.
Physical evidence and ME testimony: Two small lacerations on the back of the head which an ME states was not consistent with repeated slamming of the head into the ground.
Zimmerman's story: He would try and get up and each time he did, Martin would slam his head into the concrete again and again.
My take: His head was not slammed into the concrete repeatably. As such Zimmerman's account is not what happened.
Physical evidence: audio recording of someone screaming for help immediately before the gunshot.
Zimmerman's take: He was the one yelling for help. Right before he shot Martin, Martin was choking him.
My take: You cannot scream and not be able to breathe at the same time. Either he was not the one screaming or he was not being choked.
Physical evidence: Martin's lungs were perforated with shrapnel when he was shot. With holes in one's lungs no upwards pressure can be generated to push air across the larynx.
Zimmerman's story: Martin said, "you got me," right after Zimmerman shot him.
My take: Martin could not have said anything as he had holes in both lungs from the bullet exploding in his chest. Either Martin had said nothing demonstrating again that his story was not the truth or worse Martin said that before he shot him.
The physical evidence is mutually exclusive to Zimmerman's account of events that happened immediately before the shot was fired. Now please point to me the physical evidence that I cited that I am wrong about or the accounts of Zimmerman that I got wrong. Try and be specific. I was.
This particular juror said ultimately she believed Zimmerman because of Sorino's comment that he was truthful saying "he has seen all of this before." She did not believe Dee-Dee because she "felt sorry for her and her poor communication skills."Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
She was instructed to disregard Sorino's statement specifically and the second statement sounds to me like she is saying she didn't believe Dee Dee because she sounds like a black woman. It is what it is but I take issue with her admitting that she disregarded the judge's instructions.
Why do you conveniently leave out arguably the most important piece of testimony from the witness that said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him up ground-and-pound/MMA style?
You are a charlatan. In the truest sense of the word.
:lol CharlatanQuote:
Originally Posted by mingus
:lol truest sense
Charlatan's by definition are out for money or fame, dimwit.
And again if he was indeed getting his head pounded into the ground then why are his verifiable injuries not consistent with said accounts? There are conflicting reports as to who was on top but the undeniable fact is that two small lacerations to the back of the head are not consistent with getting pummeled like that.
Two spectrometers read the wavelength at being 700nm but a guy said that the clowns nose was green so I will believe that.....
I go by dictionary.com's definition and it mentions nothing about money. But, being the genius god that you are, maybe you go by a dictionary you fashioned yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
As to your point... maybe Zimmerman wasn't repeatedly getting his head slammed into the ground, maybe he was. Out front the quack ME said his head injuries weren't consistent with repeated slams, but after O'Mara probed her, she conceded that his injuries could in fact be consistent with three slams, at least, and made herself look incompetent and agenda-driven in the process. Nobody really knows.
But the bigger point that you ignored in your shitty evidence-biased analysis (lol empericist my ass) of the case and what is known is that you don't have to have drastic injuries to claim that someone is trying to inflict life-threatening damage on you and furthermore claim self-defense. A person could be mounted on you ground-and-pound style with the intent to seriously injure you, but inflict disproportionate injury.
You can make me a conman if it makes you feel better. Ad hominem is what it is. That is most of the entirety of what your diatribe is. If you want to go with the simple definition for the "truth" regarding something then that speaks to you certainly. Look up the derivation of the word and if you still think that you have it right then I just laugh at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
The defense on cross tried to pin her to a specific number and she wasn't going for it. The bottom line is that she stuck to her guns saying that multiple forceful blows were not the cause. Where is the evidence anywhere that these types of injuries are consistent with continued blows MMA style or over and again as Zimmerman contends? There is none.
Your ignoring my other points. How nice of you. You then grandstand on a single point and try to make that the totality of it. That is disingenuous.
So again Zimmerman could not have have been yelling for help and not be able to breathe. Martin could not have said anything after being shot. Zimmerman cannot teleport 40 feet. Zimmerman was not getting his head beat into the concrete when he shot Martin. He was not on the concrete at that point or anywhere near it.
I bolded the emotional ad hominems in your post and I would like to reiterate the specific details I am talking about. ME testimony. Zimmerman's statements. Where the body was found relative to the concrete. State of Martin's lungs. How one makes utterance. All of these are an empirical approach. All of them are factual. Compare that with your bolded claptrap. it is what it is.
If you want to think that being scared is all that is required for a self defense acquittal then you are wrong. Go look it up. There are issues of reason and proportionality that have to be considered and if one thing is clear, Zimmerman's use of force far exceeded Martin's. His life was not in danger and he did not need to kill the teenager. I find that unreasonable.
Provide a link for us to her admitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
If this is all so painfully clear to you, why wasn't this a slam dunk for the State?
What is your view on Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman? Does an assault not deserve a response?
So because she found the witnesses testimony to be credible and truthful you claim she is disregarding the judges instructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
:lol
MY view is that Zimmerman's account of what happened was not true. As for why it wasn't a slam dunk, we already have one juror that out and admitted that she was swayed by something that the judge told her to disregard.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
When the statement in question was told to be specifically ignored then that is exactly what that means. It shouldn't be a difficult concept. Apparently it is for the both of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
So you, FuzzyLumpkins, know more about crime than lead detective Sorino? :lmao How many crimes have you investigated? How many times have you been called upon as a key witness in a murder case?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You're just trolling now.
It's only human nature to have Sorino's comment stick in your head, regardless of what the judge instructed. His comment stuck in the heads of every single juror, that shouldn't be a difficult concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
If a juror willfully ignores the judges instructions, I'm pretty sure that's at least a factor in an appeal/mistrial scenario, no?
Willfully is the kicker here. She pretty much makes that clear.
Happens all the time in a courtroom sparky. By both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Wake up.
You're just butthurt the juror found the investigator to be credible with information that hurts your fabrications.
The jurors generally don't make a point of pointing it out tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
:lol The Travbonz Straw Graspers Group will be meeting at Fuzzys for tea and crumpets on Thursday afternoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Look, buttmunch. Just weighing in on the concept. Don't be so threatened.
I'm sure it happens all the time, but yeah I've never heard one come out and pretty much say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Careful, or you'll scare Fabbs with that crazy talk.
:lol fabricationsQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
She made her decision on a statement that she was told specifically to ignore. You can rationalize all you like but she spoke directly to the first quote in my sig and ignored the judge. She was in the wrong and there really is no question about that.
I would also add that half of the jurors came out wanting to convict. We have one of the ones wanting an acquittal doing it on an incorrect basis. I hope we get a chance to hear what the other jurors have to say.
Speak for yourself and quit talking out of your ass. When another juror out and says that then you have a point until then enough with the fantasy land.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
I do love how you have gone to generalized dicksucking of someone that says something you want to hear and have given up on talking about specifics. It's a definite pattern for you.
Oh shit this is golden coming from the crime scence computer detective claiming he knows more of the truth than the lead detective in the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
I doubt the others are going to be dumb enough to admit it to the public, but fine, I'll concede that one.Quote:
When another juror out and says that then you have a point until then enough with the fantasy land.
I don't care what she says, and had nothing I wanted to "hear" out of her. I just find it funny that you couldn't see, and still can't see how the jury couldn't convict.Quote:
I do love how you have gone to generalized dicksucking of someone that says something you want to hear and have given up on talking about specifics. It's a definite pattern for you.
Trayvon suckerpunches and gets on top of Zimmerman and continues to beat him. Zimmerman fears for his life and shoots him. Self defense, pretty easy if you ask me.
And like I've said before, I don't think Zimmerman was right to get out and follow Trayvon, but he did and that is not illegal. Did he make a bad choice? Sure, and he has to live with that. Did Trayvon make a bad choice? Sure, and now he's dead. Again, no winners in this one.
Oh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
So do tell and prove what exactly the Judge was instructing the jury about in your 30 second You Tube extrapolation.
I could say the half that wanted to convict were going on emotion and not the law, would we ever know?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
This is boring. You keep moving the goalposts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
First it is 'where did she say it.' Then its the 'who cares that she ignored the instruction.' Now it's 'what did she really say.' Do you know what sophistry is?
I will give you some keywords when you listen again: 'disregard' and 'truthful.' It's a similar exercise they teach in middle school english. Good luck!
You do have a penchant for talking fantasy land out of your ass so I'm not exactly surprised. I will go with what we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
Fine, let's go with what we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
We know Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the face and broke his nose and then got on top of him and beat him up some more which lead to him apparently fearing for his life which lead to him shooting Trayvon dead. Not much to argue about there as YOU can not say Zimmerman didn't fear for his life. That is simply impossible as you were not there and you are not him.
Do you know Zimmerman was not fearing for his life?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Simple question please answer simply.
You never have qualified your inital ascertion. Move the goalposts? You're fabricating. Tell us where in the 1st part of the You Tube you posted that the judge tells the jury "to disregard".... just exactly what she is specifying. Chances you just took a snippet out and tried to fabricate it to the AC interview? Hovering around 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Put up or shut up.
:lol qualify itQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
It's not my fault that you have a difficult time understanding the English language. Cooper referenced it she said what she said and the judge plain as day said to disregard it.
I'm not responding to this stupidity anymore. It's obvious you have made up your mind and will change your tactic over and again. If I don't respond to you it's because I'm tired of repeating myself.
It did not happen the way Zimmerman said it did for the same reasons I have been saying for the past week that you have ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
We discussed the self defense standards yesterday I am not repeating myself again. This is boring and I am moving on.
So now he didn't get punched and wasn't on bottom? :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You're right this is boring. You're obviously trolling now.
I will admit that I did not follow the trial very closely, but I always felt it odd that 140lb boy intimidated & better yet struck fear in a 240lb man with a gun. Again, I didn't follow it closely but didn't the boy initially run away & Zimmerman followed?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
As Zimmerman was found not guilty, no. Double jeopardy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
It's not all that unusual. A judge can instruct a jury on a variety of things, like striking testimony that has been properly objected to, but they can't un-hear what they've heard.
On second thought, you make no sense at all. I'm not discussing this according to Zimmerman's account. I'm going off what the ONLY eye witness saw. Are you saying the eye witness was lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Your emotional attached to this case has you delusional. You aren't even countering my arguments anymore. You've created a case against Zimmerman based purely on speculation. You aren't as bright as I thought you were, and it seems there is an underlying issue. Let me guess and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm guessing you hate guns and are afraid of them. That has to be it. Has to be. Nothing else could blind someone like this. Am I wrong?
:lol Emotional attachmentQuote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
I leave for several hours to eat and whatnot and come back to see you post and then come back and post again a few hour later complaining about me not answering you.
About the only emotion I feel is disdain for your failure at reading comprehension and logic.
Which witness are you talking about? The one that said that Zimmerman was on top? The one that said that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman? The one that said they saw two people chasing each other around outside?
Let me guess you are going back to MMA witness.
First of all: what does confirmation bias mean?
Second: the ME said that his two small lacerations to the back of his head, the swollen nose that receded by the time he got to the station and the two small cuts on the front of his were not consistent with repeated blows to the head. Notice that I am repeating myself. You cannot seem to come top grips with this and just regurgitate your same shit. Nor is this speculation. Those were his wounds and that is what the ME said.
The position of his body relative to the sidewalk is not speculation. The perforation of Martin's lungs is not speculation. Zimmerman's accounts are not speculation. The witness testimony is not speculation.
Speculation goes something along the lines of: I think that Zimmerman chased Martin, caught up to him and confronted him demanding to know what he was doing there, tried to detain him when Martin wouldn't comply at which point Martin hit him knocking him down. Zimmerman got back up and they started chasing one another until Martin again got the upper hand at which point Zimmerman shot Martin.
I don't say any of that shit. I talk about the evidence and how the evidence doe snot match up with this repeated blows to the head nonsense. It doesn't.
I don't say that he is lying. Zimmerman has lied in the past regarding his bail I don't put it past him to lie duing his statements though he may just have a erroneous recollection.
The ME got destroyed on the stand by the defense, why should I find her credible? Why do you discredit the lead detective and find him not credible? Why is the only eye witness not credible? Do you trust Jeantel? She's lied.
You were not there. There is one eye witness account of the two of them right before the shooting, I do not see any reason for him to lie. He said Zimmerman was on bottom in a struggle (notice I didn't say getting beaten up). This is all we pretty much have to go on. Having said that, who in the fuck are you to say Zimmerman wasn't fearing for his life? Go take a long snack break, I won't be waiting here for your reply. It is obvious to me you feel you were at the scene and now have the power to read Zimmerman's mind.
Nice emotional appeal with the destroyed comment. We get that you want to believe the defense. It lacks analysis, logic or really even any attempt at a real argument but so be it. Small lacerations and a swollen nose are not consistent with an MMA style beating. Do we need to look at some MMA footage to see what the guy was trying to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
I don't care one way or another about Sorino. I take issue with the juror ignoring the judge's order to disregard the comment. Try and keep up.
There was more than one account of people that saw them before the shooting. The one that looked out the window and saw them chasing each other and the MILF that saw Zimmerman on top. Try again.
I don't try and read Zimmerman's mind. I listen to his testimony, look at the knonw physical evidence and compare them. They are mutually exclusive.
You are definitely a product of the CA school system and I am done with you. You are repeating the same drivel over and again at which I have to reiterate my responses. Anyone else reading this should have a good notion of what I am saying and that is good enough for me.
Speaking of regurgitating, it's all you seem to do. Yes I understand your views, I just don't see them relevant to the question I continually ask. Could George Zimmerman have feared for his life when Trayvon was on top of him, yes or no? Stop beating around the bush I'm tired of it. Yes or no?
Where did I specify that all Zimmerman needed was to be scared, guy that likes to point out other people's logical fallacies but ignores it when he does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You've proved in this this thread--and i forewarn anybody else that wants to exchange with you--that your reasoning is based on distorions of other people's words and selection bias. To put it simply, you are intellectually dishonest. Why on earth would I want to address and waste my time on your other points knowing this? You cry "answer all my points" but you don't deserve it. Not after your argumentive gimmickry. Your (misplaced) arrogance (which you even admitted btw) is behind your entitlement. Prove to me that your an intellectually honest man, and then I will address your points. But until then, I'll let other people take out your e-trash.