The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 24
Page 24 of 49 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #231
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hog Jaw, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,275
    Howdy Blues,

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Considering that your post was made for no other reason than to question the veracity of another member who said (presumably truthfully) that they don't know the name of a street in close proximity to their home, it seems that you don't know the names of the principles in a nationally-known, highly-publicized case that we've all been discussing for two weeks now.

    In case you don't get the crux of my observation, if the above statement has any credibility whatsoever, it would only apply to Zimmerman, not Martin. Oops.



    I never would've thought a worse witness could come out of this witch-hunt than the friend-girl, but man! You hit that nail right on the head.

    So what's the "cure" for this debacle? The ME was reading from his secret script when he testified to Trayvon still being in pain, still suffering etc. How can the judge possibly fix this? I guess she could dismiss the witness and strike his testimony from the record since every bit of it was based on nothing he wrote contemporaneous to the events he was testifying about, but if his testimony is stricken, the defense can't use the prosecution's incompetency against them in closing arguments, right? And the prosecution wouldn't be able to use anything the guy said that the judge deems allowable if his testimony stays in, right?

    Too weird. Still strange goings-on down there in Sanford, FL

    Blues
    I just find it hard to believe, but totally possible, that a intelligent grown man would not know the names of a street that you can see from his house that he has lived in for over 12 years. It just doesn't add up.

    Martin still in pain and suffering before he died after being shot. What's so had to believe or understand about that?

    Based on the amount of blood that bled out of the GSW it is fairly easy for a trained ME to tell how long a person, or animal, lived after being shot.

    the principles in a nationally-known, highly-publicized case: George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin maybe?

    Paul
    I'm so Liberal that I work at the Bill and Hillary Clinton Regional Airport!

  2.   
  3. #232
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Goosetown in the Pintlers
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by r1derbike View Post
    Ironically, this happens to me a lot. I know my area, my address, and I may go a block over or wherever, and can't remember the names of the streets just a few blocks away, and travel them constantly.

    I have very little trouble remembering the names of streets and areas I visit rarely.

    It's almost like actors when they over rehearse their lines, and when it's time, they are "up", as they call it. Not able to remember the lines.

    Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion at hand, but not remembering too common names or areas does happen to me.

    It's almost like the brain blocks this info, because it is so repetitive in nature; a brain fart.

    I'm sure a brain specialist could explain the mechanism. Old age in my case.
    In my case it depends on how the streets are named. If there is a predictable pattern to the naming it is easier to remember. For example, our north south streets are numbered from 3rd to 8th with 5 main thoroughfares breaking that pattern. From east to west we have a handful of presidents then a bunch of trees with a few odd ball nontrees thrown in. The latter are mostly alphabetical. Even so, some of the street name signs are either missing or turned so a person unfamiliar with that specific neighborhood might not know what streets make up an intersection.
    ...SCOTUS says we're right...You don't like it. I'm sorry you don't like it. I guess that's a problem for you. Some people don't like gays. Some don't like alcohol. Some don't like meat. ~michaelzwilliamson

  4. #233
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Ok... I've been silent about this too long...

    The concept of defense of life is quite simple...

    -A lethal force response is justified for he/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death.-

    Now... ponder that for a moment....

    It simply means... no matter who did what before that "aha" moment when a human being's life is about to be snuffed... the one who is about to be snuffed has the right to use what ever amount of force is required to stop the events that will result in being snuffed.

    (I'm using the word "snuffed" to denote all the legal reason for justified self defense such as... great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death)

    Ok... so all this talk about Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck... or Trayvon should have just gone home... is all BS talk because... at that "aha" moment none of it matters. Not one little bit of it.

    Could Zimmerman's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    Could Trayvon's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    But when it comes down to the actual nitty gritty the only question that needs to be answered is.......

    Did Zimmerman have an actual reasonable belief that he was going to be "snuffed" if he didn't shoot the person bashing his head against the concrete.............. or not.

    All of our opinions are nothing but hot air (yes, I have my own hot air opinion) because when it comes down to it... whoever is about to be "snuffed" has the right to use lethal force to prevent being "snuffed".

    Again... ponder that because...

    If Trayvon is bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete then Zimmerman has the right to use lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed"...

    However!!!!! And this is a very important thing to think about!!!

    If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman somehow gained the upper hand and began to bash Trayvon's head against the concrete then....

    at that moment!!!

    it would be Trayvon who would be justified in using lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed".

    It seems to me folks in this conversation about who is to blame for Trayvon being shot are missing the above understanding about how all this stuff works. Because... it really is very simple. He/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death is justified in using lethal force against their attacker in order to prevent being crippled, raped, or killed.

    Now....

    Could/would there be some degree of penalty assessed for either party escalating or contributing to the events influencing how things turned out? Well... yes. But all those contributing and escalating events do NOT cancel out the simple concept that he/she who is actually in the immediate danger of being maimed/raped and/or murdered is justified in using lethal force to prevent being maimed/raped and/or murdered.

    So... FOR ME! (my hot air opinion)... all the discussion about Zimmerman's past or actions that night... or Trayvon's past or actions that night is pointless... what I want to know is who was in actual danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death at the moment the shot was fired.

  5. #234
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Ok... I've been silent about this too long...

    The concept of defense of life is quite simple...

    -A lethal force response is justified for he/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death.-

    Now... ponder that for a moment....

    It simply means... no matter who did what before that "aha" moment when a human being's life is about to be snuffed... the one who is about to be snuffed has the right to use what ever amount of force is required to stop the events that will result in being snuffed.

    (I'm using the word "snuffed" to denote all the legal reason for justified self defense such as... great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death)

    Ok... so all this talk about Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck... or Trayvon should have just gone home... is all BS talk because... at that "aha" moment none of it matters. Not one little bit of it.

    Could Zimmerman's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    Could Trayvon's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    But when it comes down to the actual nitty gritty the only question that needs to be answered is.......

    Did Zimmerman have an actual reasonable belief that he was going to be "snuffed" if he didn't shoot the person bashing his head against the concrete.............. or not.

    All of our opinions are nothing but hot air (yes, I have my own hot air opinion) because when it comes down to it... whoever is about to be "snuffed" has the right to use lethal force to prevent being "snuffed".

    Again... ponder that because...

    If Trayvon is bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete then Zimmerman has the right to use lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed"...

    However!!!!! And this is a very important thing to think about!!!

    If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman somehow gained the upper hand and began to bash Trayvon's head against the concrete then....

    at that moment!!!

    it would be Trayvon who would be justified in using lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed".

    It seems to me folks in this conversation about who is to blame for Trayvon being shot are missing the above understanding about how all this stuff works. Because... it really is very simple. He/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death is justified in using lethal force against their attacker in order to prevent being crippled, raped, or killed.

    Now....

    Could/would there be some degree of penalty assessed for either party escalating or contributing to the events influencing how things turned out? Well... yes. But all those contributing and escalating events do NOT cancel out the simple concept that he/she who is actually in the immediate danger of being maimed/raped and/or murdered is justified in using lethal force to prevent being maimed/raped and/or murdered.

    So... FOR ME! (my hot air opinion)... all the discussion about Zimmerman's past or actions that night... or Trayvon's past or actions that night is pointless... what I want to know is who was in actual danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death at the moment the shot was fired.
    Proofs in the pudding.....All he has to say is that he was in fear of his life. (It would be great if this was actually all that it takes. Of course State law only requires this)
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  6. #235
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy Blues,

    I just find it hard to believe, but totally possible, that a intelligent grown man would not know the names of a street that you can see from his house that he has lived in for over 12 years. It just doesn't add up.
    Then you have no imagination at all. I'm looking out my front window right now and can see the back yards of two homes that are in a sub-division next to the one I live in. The sub-divisions are fenced off from each other, but they can see my street, and I can see a bit of theirs. I have no clue what the name of that street is. I have no reason to exit my sub-division (a mile's drive), take a right, travel another mile and a half or so, turn into their sub-division, drive around it looking for the street that I can see from my window just so I'll know what the name of that street is. And I've got Rhino beat by a full year. Been here in this same home for 13 now.

    If I had any reason to want to know, I could certainly look up the name of that street, and if I ever witness a crime or need to direct firefighters to one of the homes I can see from here, I would do that post haste, but whether it adds up to you or not, for now, I don't know the street's name, and I'll thank you not to presume to imply that I would be lying about it like you did with Rhino.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Martin still in pain and suffering before he died after being shot. What's so had to believe or understand about that?
    Are you kidding? I never said I didn't believe it. The question is, is it legal for the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on his body to change the testimony that he delivered in deposition while on the stand , in the presence of the jury and in open court? You do realize a trial under the laws of Florida and the Constitution of the United States of America is what we're discussing here, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Based on the amount of blood that bled out of the GSW it is fairly easy for a trained ME to tell how long a person, or animal, lived after being shot.
    Even the ME didn't testify that it was "easy" to tell, "fairly" or otherwise. He gave a range of one to 10 minutes that he might have lived after being shot. That's a range of 10 times the minimum before you reach the maximum, and even then, that is a different range than he gave during deposition(s), and he didn't bother to notify the prosecution that any of his testimony was going to be at variance with their deposition(s) of him. As it turned out, that was just one of several issues he changed his testimony about.

    And what did he base the new range on? Well, he told the court, he based it not on his training or expertise in his field, but on the facts surrounding a case that he was not the ME on, that he did not perform the autopsy on, and that he only knew of because he was doing research specifically on the Zimmerman case on his own, something he is neither qualified nor authorized by our justice system to do. He claimed to have no independent memory of a single fact he supposedly documented in his official report, so instead of bringing that report to court, or asking to refer to it to refresh his memory, he wrote several pages of notes in anticipation of both the prosecution's and defense's questions and was literally reading those answers in response to everything he was asked about, and that's where the utterance about Trayvon being in pain and continuing to suffer came from.

    There are rules of evidence, and rules about how evidence comes in, as well as rules against evidence that tends to provide prejudicial, as opposed to probative, value for the jurors, and that pain and suffering stuff violated all of it.

    If you're not well-informed enough to discuss the nuances and legalities of the trial, perhaps you'd be better-received in a thread about all the Tweeters and FaceBookers who are threatening to kill Zimmerman after the prosecution blows this case so bad that a mistrial, directed acquittal or jury verdict for acquittal comes down the pike. You appear to be out of your depth here.

    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...

  7. #236
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    How is it possible that you have lived in the same place for 12 years but you don't know the name of a street that you can see from you're house? Like George's story, that doesn't add up.
    I wasn't doing math. I don't need to memorize those street names. I don't live there. And as was pointed out by someone else, Zimmerman did know the street name. It was in his first sentence when he called 911. It was the number he didn't know.

    Martin "thought" he was the Sheriff of Twin Lakes. Twin Lakes' HOA ( Home Owner's Association ) settled a $1,000,000.00 wrongful death lawsuit with Martin's family and the HOA's President testified that George repeated told homeowners to turn down their music, that they needed to clean up around their townhouse, that their cars were not parked in accordance with HOA rules, etc.

    Gee, that sure sounds more like a cop wannabe than a neighborhood crime watch.
    You've obviously never lived anywhere with a homeowner's association. They act like that all the time. And what the HOA did with their lawsuit has nothing to do with Zimmerman. They just wanted to avoid a court battle. The size of the settlement is unknown by the way. The court records are sealed. Zimmerman was on the parking committee of the HOA. It was his duty as part of that position to help enforce parking regulations. All they did was hand out warnings so the residents didn't get their cars towed away. Donald O’Brien, the HOA president, testified to that. He also testified that there were no complaints about Zimmerman and that he seemed to be doing a good job. The fact that you don't know these things tells me either you have bad sources or you're making up facts to fit your conclusion again because it's pretty obvious you have an axe to grind here. Since there was no testimony whatsoever about music or cleaning up, my money is on you just making it all up.

    HOA Pres. Also stated that he did NOT know George was a convicted criminal or that George was armed while on patrol.
    I don't tell people when I carry my gun either. Why would I want to? And Zimmerman wasn't a convicted criminal. Florida tends not to give concealed carry licenses to convicted criminals. That's another obvious fact that tells me you haven't got a clue what you're talking about but are rather speaking from a position of preconceived bias alone.

    Based on the number of calls to the real police and George's statement(s), and complaint's files with the HOA, he went on patrol several times a day.
    So you ARE making it up. Thanks.

    "Lay of the land"? That's a term country folk used the describe that terrain in a given area. If you know where the creeks, ridges, draws, flats, etc are located in a geographical area you know the "lay of the land". Comes in handy for deer, turkey, and squirrel hunting. And when you want to circle around and ambush someone too.
    I'm quite familiar with the term. You just seem to think seeing a bush and hiding behind it qualifies as knowing the lay of the land, and that it somehow equates to knowing all the local street names.

    And since we're on the topic of O'Brien's testimony, he also praised some contractors who had helped in the capture of a teenager who had burglarized a home in the neighborhood sometime earlier. The contractors were repairing stucco in the neighborhood and the HOA president was there talking with them when a teenager came up and talked for a while. Later, the contractors saw the teenager come out of a house that was discovered to have been burglarized and jump into a truck that sped away. A few days later the contractors were having lunch across the street from the neighborhood and saw the kid again. They called the cops and the kid was arrested. The HOA president highly praised the contractors for their actions. I say actions in the plural because they didn't just call the cops. They went outside and FOLLOWED the kid into the development until the cops arrived so they could maintain contact and point his location out to the arriving officers. So the HOA president didn't have a problem with following to maintain visual contact as long as a safe distance was maintained. That's what Zimmerman thought he was doing, but he didn't know Martin had set up an ambush. Here's part of the exchange with Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney:

    O'Mara: "When you say don't follow, then you say at a distance, what you're really saying is, "If you're going to follow somebody, keep your eye on them to report them to the police, just make sure you do it safely.", correct?"

    O'Brien: "That is what the police told us."

    O'Mara: "And like you just said, do it at a safe distance to protect yourself, right?"

    O'Brien: "Correct."

    O'Mara: "You want to make sure that you maintain your own personal safety when you're trying to help out, whether it be neighborhood watch or just the cops in general?"

    O'Brien: "Correct."

    O'Mara: "Okay."

    O'Brien: "Because we are not police."

    O'Mara: "Sure. But you can be the eyes and ears of police, right?"

    "Correct."
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  8. #237
    ezkl2230 Guest
    From Yahoo News this evening:

    "The jury must decide whether to believe Zimmerman, and because prosecutors failed to object to one question on cross-examination, the jury learned that the lead police detective found Zimmerman's story credible.

    Sanford Police Investigator Chris Serino, who interrogated Zimmerman, told the jury he concluded the defendant was either telling the truth or was a pathological liar. At that point lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked, "Do you think he was telling the truth?"

    Prosecutors should have objected to the question, analysts said, but they remained silent.

    "Yes," Serino replied.

    They objected the next day, when Judge Debra Nelson ruled witnesses were not supposed to comment on the credibility of other witnesses because it was the jury's job to decide who to believe. She ordered the jury to ignore that exchange, which means it cannot be mentioned in closing arguments and they should not consider it during deliberations, but her ruling also called further attention to what Serino said."
    The case against Zimmerman: Far from clear, undercut by blunder

  9. #238
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Goosetown in the Pintlers
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Ok... I've been silent about this too long...

    The concept of defense of life is quite simple...

    -A lethal force response is justified for he/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death.-

    Now... ponder that for a moment....

    It simply means... no matter who did what before that "aha" moment when a human being's life is about to be snuffed... the one who is about to be snuffed has the right to use what ever amount of force is required to stop the events that will result in being snuffed.

    (I'm using the word "snuffed" to denote all the legal reason for justified self defense such as... great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death)

    Ok... so all this talk about Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck... or Trayvon should have just gone home... is all BS talk because... at that "aha" moment none of it matters. Not one little bit of it.

    Could Zimmerman's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    Could Trayvon's actions contributed to the event happening? Perhaps.

    But when it comes down to the actual nitty gritty the only question that needs to be answered is.......

    Did Zimmerman have an actual reasonable belief that he was going to be "snuffed" if he didn't shoot the person bashing his head against the concrete.............. or not.

    All of our opinions are nothing but hot air (yes, I have my own hot air opinion) because when it comes down to it... whoever is about to be "snuffed" has the right to use lethal force to prevent being "snuffed".

    Again... ponder that because...

    If Trayvon is bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete then Zimmerman has the right to use lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed"...

    However!!!!! And this is a very important thing to think about!!!

    If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman somehow gained the upper hand and began to bash Trayvon's head against the concrete then....

    at that moment!!!

    it would be Trayvon who would be justified in using lethal force to prevent himself from being "snuffed".

    It seems to me folks in this conversation about who is to blame for Trayvon being shot are missing the above understanding about how all this stuff works. Because... it really is very simple. He/she who is in immediate danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death is justified in using lethal force against their attacker in order to prevent being crippled, raped, or killed.

    Now....

    Could/would there be some degree of penalty assessed for either party escalating or contributing to the events influencing how things turned out? Well... yes. But all those contributing and escalating events do NOT cancel out the simple concept that he/she who is actually in the immediate danger of being maimed/raped and/or murdered is justified in using lethal force to prevent being maimed/raped and/or murdered.

    So... FOR ME! (my hot air opinion)... all the discussion about Zimmerman's past or actions that night... or Trayvon's past or actions that night is pointless... what I want to know is who was in actual danger of great bodily harm, unwanted sexual penetration, and/or death at the moment the shot was fired.
    Not quite exactly. If a person is engaged in an illegal act and is a threat to other persons as consequence to committing that illegal act and those persons defend themselves with force, then if the person committing the illegal act defends him/herself with return force enough to cause injury to life or limb of the defenders, that is an exacerbation of the crime that could include additional charges.
    ...SCOTUS says we're right...You don't like it. I'm sorry you don't like it. I guess that's a problem for you. Some people don't like gays. Some don't like alcohol. Some don't like meat. ~michaelzwilliamson

  10. #239
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Goosetown in the Pintlers
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy Blues,



    I just find it hard to believe, but totally possible, that a intelligent grown man would not know the names of a street that you can see from his house that he has lived in for over 12 years. It just doesn't add up.

    Martin still in pain and suffering before he died after being shot. What's so had to believe or understand about that?

    Based on the amount of blood that bled out of the GSW it is fairly easy for a trained ME to tell how long a person, or animal, lived after being shot.

    the principles in a nationally-known, highly-publicized case: George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin maybe?

    Paul
    How do you know that Martin was in pain and suffering?
    Of what significance is it if he was?
    ...SCOTUS says we're right...You don't like it. I'm sorry you don't like it. I guess that's a problem for you. Some people don't like gays. Some don't like alcohol. Some don't like meat. ~michaelzwilliamson

  11. #240
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallstones View Post
    How do you know that Martin was in pain and suffering?
    Of what significance is it if he was?
    According to witnesses, Martin didn't die right away. He was moving and moaning for a few minutes. The point was that the ME was giving testimony about events he did not witness and that were in his personal notes that he had not provided to the court, and didn't want to provide even after looking at them on the witness stand. Contrary to what Stengun believes, the time it takes to die cannot be estimated by blood loss. In the first place, blood loss can't even be accurately measured. No two people have the exact same blood volume, and there was no possible way to measure how much blood left Martin's body after he was shot. As for the moaning, it may indicate pain and it may not. We sometimes get patients on my rescue squad that make all manner of noises that you'd think were the result of pain when it isn't, and others in great pain who make no noise at all. But whether Martin's moans meant pain ot not, the ME was not there to witness them and he had no right to testify about them. The same goes for blood loss, since he had no way to measure lost blood volume after the fact. This is just one more example of Stengun making up false 'facts' to fit his arguments when the true facts don't fit his story well enough.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Page 24 of 49 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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