The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 14
Page 14 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Firefighterchen >>> Nei Ho Ma ! We can all use more training when it comes to firearms! Your smug remark leads me to tell you to work on your reading comprehension skills!!!
    Please quote me where I asked at all or ever on this thread what action justifies the use of deadly force! As you read this read it like I am talking slow, easier to understand.
    This whole trial (this is and was my whole point) clouded by all the talk of neighborhood watch protocol, did George disobey orders? Did he follow him? To me all moot points. We can get to the crux much faster dealing with MY QUESTION! In this case; George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or any other two individuals in any other scenario you want to conjure up...... Hope this is simple enough for you.
    Two people standing there arm distance apart ..... If you use the name GZ or TM you are bringing in unnecessary and confusing info to answer the question at hand. If you have to do that just delete your response BECAUSE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
    See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP! I am drowning in a vortex of fantasy hoping to get this question answered without peripheral BS

    Just a simple Gui Lo or "Creepy Ass Cracker"!
    Before you try and drill someone with reading comprehension insults, try using proper grammar and sentence structure?

    My first response, first paragraph, answered your question with my opinion. It had no mention of gz or tm. There was then a space to signify a new paragraph or a new thought, where I tied it back into the original thread topic.

    Like I said early, imo a punch to the head IS deadly force. There is no "punching to only knock out." Just like there is no drawing a firearm and "shooting to wound." No matter how anyone tries to spin it to make it sound like it's not as bad as "killing" they are both considered deadly force. I'm sorry you couldn't understand that before.

    Your question is like asking, "two people are standing apart, when are you justified to shoot to wound them (NOT talking about deadly force)? Sorry bud, doesn't work like that.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2.   
  3. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I agree - if the prosecution had not called him I would think the defense would have - he seemed to confirm Zimmerman's claim, and he directly contradicted the other two prosecution witnesses who put Zimmerman on top.
    Not really accurate, at least if Zimmerman's account is believable (I happen to think, so far, that it is). He says that he was either on top or would appear from a distance to be on top, as he was crawling out from under the dead weight of Martin after he shot him. He also says that he got on top and moved Martin's arms to where they were visible, but the pictures that one of the resident-witnesses took, and just testified about, contradict that part of his story. In any case, if Zimmerman testifies, he will put himself on top of Martin for a brief period after he fired, which is when all the witnesses (except for John Goode) were testifying about. I'm not sure if any of his statements to police or depositions come in if he doesn't testify (you would probably know about that), but O'Mara/West can explain his top-position at the very end of the contact with Martin during closing arguments I would think, and it will remain perfectly consistent with what Goode saw before the shooting occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Seems like the headway made by the prosecution yesterday has been dissipated by this witness.
    Wow. So you think the obvious coaching of the witness to check herself before her second day of testimony, and throw in a bunch of meaningless and sarcastic yes sirs and no sirs made "headway" for the prosecution? She remained consistent about what she thought about Zimmerman hitting Martin first, but she provided exactly zero evidence or knowledge of that happening. She was a net loss for the prosecution from beginning to end. If I were a juror, after all the racist language from Martin towards Zimmerman, between her and John Goode (at this point, without benefit of any other testimony), she would be the 40 in a 60/40 ratio of witnesses responsible for my vote for acquittal.

    If the "headway" you're perceiving is in relation to the witnesses who put Z on top after the shot was fired, that's perfectly consistent with Z's story. I don't see where you get that any headway was made for the prosecution yesterday.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    So the last prosecution witness for the day/week was the physician's assistant who saw GZ a day or two after the events. Apparently, she was called by the prosecution to get evidence in that GZ had started taking MMA training, information which he included in a questionnaire the first time he visited that medical office. I believe that that first visit was in August of 2011. So West got that info in, but spent minimal time on it, and then proceeded to question the PA about GZ's injuries the day or two after the shooting, doing everything he could to get her minimize their seriousness. She was quite matter-of-fact though, and really didn't say anything to minimize or exaggerate the injuries.

    The problem is though, where this *prosecution* witness is concerned, is that she is imminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on whether or not GZ's injuries were consistent with being violently punched and/or having his head pounded into concrete, and the defense drove a truck through the door that the prosecutor opened in questioning her about those injuries. Of course, the answer to every single one of O'Mara's questions about that was, "Yes, that injury is consistent with being punched/pounded into concrete" and there wasn't a thing the prosecution could do to stop that line of questioning since they introduced it.

    The thing everyone has to keep in mind here, and that the prosecution seemed to forget as they tried to minimize the seriousness of GZ's injuries, is that how serious his injuries turned out to be after the fact, has no bearing on whether or not he had the requisite reasonable belief that his life was in danger at the point he drew and fired his weapon. Today's PA testimony buttressed his story and made the head-being-pounded-against-concrete meme much easier to believe for the jurors.

    Oh, and then on re-direct, the prosecutor tried to bring up the MMA training again, ostensibly to leave the jury with that subject highlighted in their minds for the witness that ended the week. O'Mara objected though, on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of cross. He hadn't mentioned the MMA thing at all, so the judge had no choice but to sustain the objection, so concrete-consistent injuries = maximized, GZ's MMA training = minimized.

    The PA was one of two witnesses today who were called by the prosecution, but were then converted to defense witnesses on cross. You guys in Florida are over-paying your prosecutors!

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I never owned a slave. Wouldn't even if it was legal. Never cracked a whip. I don't know anyone who ever owned a slave. Don't know of anyone who ever was a slave. Don't know anyone who knows another person who ever was a slave. I never did anything racist to anyone. In fact I went to a high school that was 38% black and had black friends. I'm an equal-opportunity discriminator.
    .
    So someone please tell me what the hell am I paying for? Why am I a cracker?
    ~
    I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
    Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip.
    Not bit**ing just sayin'.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  6. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    ~
    I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
    Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip.
    Not bit**ing just sayin'.
    Last legal slavery ended about 1870. Given the average life expectancy back then, you're probably looking at about 100 years since the last slave was even alive. Not to mention the number of people that have immigrated since then, who's ancestors were not even in the U.S. to own slaves.
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  7. #136
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The problem is though, where this *prosecution* witness is concerned, is that she is imminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on whether or not GZ's injuries were consistent with being violently punched and/or having his head pounded into concrete, and the defense drove a truck through the door that the prosecutor opened in questioning her about those injuries. Of course, the answer to every single one of O'Mara's questions about that was, "Yes, that injury is consistent with being punched/pounded into concrete" and there wasn't a thing the prosecution could do to stop that line of questioning since they introduced it.

    Blues
    I caught that too. They opened the door. What did they expect her to say, that getting your head pounded into concrete causes no injury?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    ~
    I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
    Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip.
    Not bit**ing just sayin'.
    Same here. Family straggled-into America during the mid 1700's. Settled in Boston and upper NYS. They were horse breeders and blacksmiths. No one had a slave.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #138
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Firefighterchen >>> Nei Ho Ma ! We can all use more training when it comes to firearms! Your smug remark leads me to tell you to work on your reading comprehension skills!!!
    Please quote me where I asked at all or ever on this thread what action justifies the use of deadly force! As you read this read it like I am talking slow, easier to understand.
    This whole trial (this is and was my whole point) clouded by all the talk of neighborhood watch protocol, did George disobey orders? Did he follow him? To me all moot points. We can get to the crux much faster dealing with MY QUESTION! In this case; George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or any other two individuals in any other scenario you want to conjure up...... Hope this is simple enough for you.
    Two people standing there arm distance apart ..... If you use the name GZ or TM you are bringing in unnecessary and confusing info to answer the question at hand. If you have to do that just delete your response BECAUSE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
    See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP! I am drowning in a vortex of fantasy hoping to get this question answered without peripheral BS

    Just a simple Gui Lo or "Creepy Ass Cracker"!
    There is none. Both parties should walk away. There is no justification at that point


    Sent from behind enemy lines.

  10. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Before you try and drill someone with reading comprehension insults, try using proper grammar and sentence structure?

    My first response, first paragraph, answered your question with my opinion. It had no mention of gz or tm. There was then a space to signify a new paragraph or a new thought, where I tied it back into the original thread topic.

    Like I said early, imo a punch to the head IS deadly force. There is no "punching to only knock out." Just like there is no drawing a firearm and "shooting to wound." No matter how anyone tries to spin it to make it sound like it's not as bad as "killing" they are both considered deadly force. I'm sorry you couldn't understand that before.

    Your question is like asking, "two people are standing apart, when are you justified to shoot to wound them (NOT talking about deadly force)? Sorry bud, doesn't work like that.

    Hey Chen, As infantile as this is it was your wise A remark that I didn't understand what was involved to use deadly force and that I needed more training that I responded the way I did, You could not have gotten that impression if you understood what I wrote, hence the reading comprehension advisement.
    Now as far as my sentence structure and a few typos because of my own laziness to proof read all my post and the fact that I am using my wife's laptop instead of my own PC, which is easier to use and less frustrating to type on..... I believe you could understand what I was saying. I understand it's hard not to be a wise guy on the internet from what I have read.
    There is a transitional point when a confrontation goes physical. The question is what justifies that that transition? There mere point that by being followed by an individual made you feel threatened? I don't think that qualifies.For a more critical mind like Chen's, let me say that I know it doesn't qualify. If that isn't enough, let's just say I would not use it as justification.
    The use of "deadly force" can take many forms and does not have to end in death but have the likely potential that it could end that way. It is more a function of what would "stop the threat". To be clear on that if shooting someone to stop a threat was what was required (or hitting him in the head with a bat) and the aggressor wasn't killed you were still using what would be referred to as "deadly force". If you weren't defending yourself and you smashed someone in the head there would be a good chance you might be brought up on attempted murder charges.
    Maybe they will get to a point in this trial where it is explained just when Trayvon Martin was justified in doing what he did to Zimmerman. I don't think that will happen because I don't believe he was justified.That is what the trial is about for me. That transitional point. Difficult to prove when it doesn't seem Martin's best option was taken from him. The simple option ...... He could have run!
    For us here it would be situational awareness and avoidance.
    I'll have the popcorn ready for next week.
    So Chen no ill will here but know I never attack anyone, I just react.
    I took my time. Don't cry for me, it's just tough to type with this brace on my arm after surgery.
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    NRA Certified RSO

  11. #140
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Maybe they will get to a point in this trial where it is explained just when Trayvon Martin was justified in doing what he did to Zimmerman. I don't think that will happen because I don't believe he was justified.
    Not trying to contradict you, just offer another perspective, but I believe the reason Martin won't be shown to have been justified is that all the witnesses who had the potential to say he was justified for some reason, have already testified, and none of them saw that part of the altercation. In a baseball analogy, tie goes to the runner, with the tie being that either one of them *could have* started the fight, and the runner being the defendant, Zimmerman. If tie goes to the runner as far as who was the aggressor (statutorily-speaking), it's already over. The best the prosecution can do at this point is present statements and depositions that have some minor inconsistencies, but hey, the guy had his head pounded on and was described by the first witness to contact him after the shooting as "staggering around" and said he "squatted, trying to collect himself." On the significant facts, he hasn't been at all inconsistent, and all the witnesses support his story, whether they perceive otherwise or not. A couple or three said they saw GZ on top, but that was after the shooting, and is perfectly consistent with his story of how it looked as he tried to get out from under Martin's body. Even he says he was on top for a brief time. This trial has always been a political sham from the beginning.

    I will be absolutely amazed at this point if Zimmerman ever takes the stand, which is fairly unusual in a self defense case. Such is the quality of the prosecution's case though. Their witnesses have already established a prima facie self defense case for the defendant they're prosecuting!

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 14 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast