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