cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
You SOOO busted him!
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
You really did skip a lot of the conversation.
At least be honest when you post things.
Last edited:
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
It's airdata/dari, and the rest of the crew. They blindly ignore important details such as that, anything to help make zimmerman "appear" guilty, anything to further their white-guilt cause.
no it doesn't "establish" guilt. Actually you just used the word, imply, which is pretty much a synonym for implicate.
I'm not an etymologist, but I suspect that "prejudicial" means what it sounds like, something that exists before judgement.
So in this case since Zimmerman's remarks will most likely be part of the trial, not a pre-existing condition, prejudicial is probably a less accurate description.
I read the transcript of the bond hearing before I posted that what you said wasn't accurate. And the selected quotes you posted in response are also not accurate taken out of context.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
I've already posted info from a REAL ATTORNEY, not an overly emotional troll as all Martin supporters are called that unequivocably reminds us that often circumstantial evidence is more damning than direct evidence and that Zimmermans inconsistent statements could be viewed as a sign of guilt by jurors. Yet the dummies here pretend thsts impossible and WE are the stupid ones. JLK is right, they are either paid to come here and post stupid shit, know Zimmerman or are trolls. Those are the only options because the way they argue indisputable legal facts is ridiculous.
"The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.
What do these lies suggest?
They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.
If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?
The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.
Why is that a problem?
Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”
Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.
Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?
Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?
A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.
This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.
As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence." FLblogs
"The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.
What do these lies suggest?
They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.
If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?
The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.
Why is that a problem?
Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”
Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.
Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?
Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?
A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.
This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.
As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence." FLblogs
Last edited:
Exactly. So if his testimony is shown to be unreliable, which it will be if he's made inconsistent statements, then his testimony makes Zimmerman's case weaker, not stronger.
The jury isn't trying to find Zimmerman innocent, they don't start from a point of view that statements in his favor are true, they evaluate them based on the credibility of the witness.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
The jury must start with the mindset that GZ is innocent until proven guilty by a reasonable doubt.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...ns-for-second-degree-murder-and-self-defense/
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
All of the above are things I've argued AD NAUSEUM for months yet the tactic of GZ supporters is to attack every claim we make as if it has no factual or legal basis and they are the only ones viewing this case from a purely factual and legal perspective...bullshit.
There is Geosurface arguing it was Zimmerman screaming when all objective evidence and TWO EXPERTS say otherwise and idiots like Spidey holding on to the beaten with concrete story when no physical or medical evidence exists to support that claim.
There is Geosurface arguing it was Zimmerman screaming when all objective evidence and TWO EXPERTS say otherwise and idiots like Spidey holding on to the beaten with concrete story when no physical or medical evidence exists to support that claim.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
"A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists.It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence." Flblogs
Yet you idiots act as if all of GZs inconsistent statements and the physical evidence including where Martins body was eventually found could never cast a reasonable doubt that what Zimmerthug says is a lie and is indicative of his guilt.
Yet you idiots act as if all of GZs inconsistent statements and the physical evidence including where Martins body was eventually found could never cast a reasonable doubt that what Zimmerthug says is a lie and is indicative of his guilt.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Martin supporters have argued from the beginning that circumstantial evidence and Zimmermans apparent lies have cast a REASONABLE DOUBT that his story is a lie and he murdered Martin. The state and the judge believed the same thing or Zimmerthug would never have been arrested. IF ALL OF.ZIMMERMANS STORY LINED UP WITH EVIDENCE WE WOULDNT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE. Leatherman said that as well. Zimmerman fans look like straight up TROLLS for failing to concede at the least that Zimmerman has both a credibility and a physical evidence problem since the altercation happened in a place that paints Zimmerman as the pursuer.
Because they omit the context in which the statements are given.
You said the "lead investigator" said they have no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, or that he confronted Martin.
He never said either of those things. Zimmerman's lawyer said those things, and attempted to get the investigator to agree with him. The investigator disagreed with Zimmerman's lawyer about a number of things, including if he was a "lead" investigator.
So, if you leave out the disagreeing statements, and only quote the part of the transcript where his answers are qualified by preceding statements, you can get an inaccurate account of the entirety of his testimony.
Which is part of a defense lawyer's job, to minimize the prosecution's case.
presuming he is innocent has nothing to do with what I said about witness testimony.
They do not evaluate evidence or testimony with a presumption that if it supports Zimmerman's case it is true.
That's completely different than the innocent til proven guilty standard.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
????
I am saying that Zimmermans lies and the physical evidence has cast reasonable doubt in my mind thats hes not telling the truth.
Leatherman says that's the standard the jurors will use as well:
Quote: The defendant, George Zimmerman, is presumed innocent and remains innocent unless the jury unanimously finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
The biggest reason I believe Zimmerman intended to harm Martin is based upon two things:
1. His own indisputable testimony that cannot be debunked and thats the NEN call where he had already developed clear malice towards Martin BEFORE Martin said or did a single them to him therefore anything Martin said or did AFTER he came face to face with Zimmerman, short of getting on his knees and confessing to a crime ENRAGED ZIMMERMAN. I have no reason to believe the angry, irritated and chasing.Zimmerman suddenly became docile when he encountered Martin and witness testimony of a loud argument including what DeeDee said corroborates that fact. I believe he chased and encountered Martin with harmful intent and the fact that he tries to place the mindset of harmful intent on to Martin betrays his guilt. When asked why Martin would be the one who wanted to hurt him he could not answer because no answer would make any sense outside of, "because I chased him down and confronted him when I had seen him commit no crime."
2. The physical evidence says WITHOUT A DOUBT that Zimmerman went into Trayvon's "space" and not the other way around. Had this encounter happened near Zimmermans truck seconds after he hung up with police I might believe he was ambushed. Yet this happened more than 2 minutes after he hung up and.closer to Trayvons place than Zimmermans truck that all points to Zimmerman continuing to be the aggressor he was on the phone with NEN.
1. His own indisputable testimony that cannot be debunked and thats the NEN call where he had already developed clear malice towards Martin BEFORE Martin said or did a single them to him therefore anything Martin said or did AFTER he came face to face with Zimmerman, short of getting on his knees and confessing to a crime ENRAGED ZIMMERMAN. I have no reason to believe the angry, irritated and chasing.Zimmerman suddenly became docile when he encountered Martin and witness testimony of a loud argument including what DeeDee said corroborates that fact. I believe he chased and encountered Martin with harmful intent and the fact that he tries to place the mindset of harmful intent on to Martin betrays his guilt. When asked why Martin would be the one who wanted to hurt him he could not answer because no answer would make any sense outside of, "because I chased him down and confronted him when I had seen him commit no crime."
2. The physical evidence says WITHOUT A DOUBT that Zimmerman went into Trayvon's "space" and not the other way around. Had this encounter happened near Zimmermans truck seconds after he hung up with police I might believe he was ambushed. Yet this happened more than 2 minutes after he hung up and.closer to Trayvons place than Zimmermans truck that all points to Zimmerman continuing to be the aggressor he was on the phone with NEN.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
I thought for a second that you might have started putting some thought into your post, I see I was wrong, you're simply copy pasting lying blog entries that support your ignorant, race fueled bias. Still Grade A, USDA Choice garbage in, garbage out. As you were.
You do understand that if zimmerman was the initial aggressor he can still shoot in self defense when he is on his back, being restrained, unable to retreat, after being severely beaten right?
You do know that, right? That is a fact, that is the law. What martin did was a forcible felony and the only crime committed that night was by the thug.
Ok, we're back to the "he wasn't beaten bad enough to justifably shoot".
The law disagrees with you. Just the threat of bodily harm/death is enough. And a broken nose, multiple head lacerations and facial lacerations/abrasions is a brutal beating requiring a hospital visit.
Just think of how bad it would have been had he not shot him, he saved his life or at the very least saved from permanent debilitating injury.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter