Day 5- Zimmerman Trial

[RGinWA 816]

I heard Santa never married Mrs Claus.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I heard Santa never married Mrs Claus.

If that were true, then she wouldnt be Mrs. Claus.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

6. GZ was instructed not to follow, yet he went looking anyway. His actions gave the appearance to anyone thinking they were "already being followed" that they were being stalked or pursued. Wrong or right you stated yourself when you feel threatened, fight like an animal...your own words. But TM can't claim that right correct, because he's a thug?

I believe this will be key to GZ's conviction. I find it peculiar that those who believe GZ had reasonably feared for his life that night can't seem to even fathom that TM could have also reasonably feared for his life that night, and it isn't logical to separate GZ's behavior leading up the confrontation as not having any bearing on TM's emotional state and whatever subsequent behavior he showed if he feared for his life.

The other thing is - it doesn't make sense that GZ would be screaming for help given that he had already suspected TM was "up to know good" that night and would get away with it if he didn't stop him. The police were minutes away. What could GZ imagined how it would go down by him pursuing on foot someone he suspected as being a criminal? But see, his initial words to TM betray any realized fear for his life. He was a bouncer - he knew exactly how to handle a crises - like identifying himself and explaining to TM why he was following him. No, the jurors will look at reasonable possibilities to try and fill in the holes, and the circumstances, behaviors and mindsets of both parties leading up to the confrontation show one aggressor and one victim.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I believe this will be key to GZ's conviction. I find it peculiar that those who believe GZ had reasonably feared for his life that night can't seem to even fathom that TM could have also reasonably feared for his life that night, and it isn't logical to separate GZ's behavior leading up the confrontation as not having any bearing on TM's emotional state and whatever subsequent behavior he showed if he feared for his life.

The other thing is - it doesn't make sense that GZ would be screaming for help given that he had already suspected TM was "up to know good" that night and would get away with it if he didn't stop him. The police were minutes away. What could GZ imagined how it would go down by him pursuing on foot someone he suspected as being a criminal? But see, his initial words to TM betray any realized fear for his life. He was a bouncer - he knew exactly how to handle a crises - like identifying himself and explaining to TM why he was following him. No, the jurors will look at reasonable possibilities to try and fill in the holes, and the circumstances, behaviors and mindsets of both parties leading up to the confrontation show one aggressor and one victim.

1. Using the "its the victims fault for being there" prosecution is not going to work.

2. TM could have reasonably feared for his life. I have no trouble fathoming that. Let's ask him. Oops. See, Steven, to claim self defense in court, you have to appear in court.

We are expected to believe that GZ did not have to approach TM but we are not expected to fathom that TM could have simply waited for the police to arrive and check the situation. I have sons and none of them look like TM, but they have all lived longer than TM because they would not "gorund and pound" someone for asking what they were doing in a strange neighborhood. TM made some bad decisions and got shot for it. Toughski shitski as they say in Russia.

Nothing else you said will matter. You are also forgetting it only takes 1 person having a reasonable doubt.

What you are seeing is a puppet show to appease people like you. It was a lost cause to begin with.

GZ will walk away free. You don't have to like it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes, but as I wrote before, it's a catch 22. If he walks and there's outrage and riots, it will feed into the stereotype that we are uncivilized animals and TM had it coming since it was inevitable for him to become violent and GZ was justified for killing him. If he walks and we show restraint, then it sends the message that killing a black person has little to no consequence and you will have a lot more Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis killings in the future.

Will there be riots if he is convicted?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I heard that the moon landings were fake and that the government blew up the World Trade Center.

Sergey is a graduate of the great Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Known among the scientific world as a top school but often overlooked because much of their research is never published for national security reasons. It was, and is, the main research school for the Russian space program (which is actually still in operation...if an American wants to go to space, he will need to hitch a ride with the Russians...thanks to Obama)

Anyway, on a wall in the school they have a mural that says "We would have been to the moon first...if the Americans had not faked it"

They also say "In the 1960s America spent $3 billion to invent a pen that would write in space. We used a pencil"

Russian humor.

GZ will walk away free. No way he is convicted of anything.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. Using the "its the victims fault for being there" prosecution is not going to work.

2. TM could have reasonably feared for his life. I have no trouble fathoming that. Let's ask him. Oops. See, Steven, to claim self defense in court, you have to appear in court.

Victims in murder cases never get a chance to speak on their behalf, whereas defendants can and often plead the 5th, making your silly argument moot.

Finding GZ guilty won't require any speculation from the jury, just a reasonable refutation of GZ's claim of self defense, weighed against the verifiable behavior, actions and words by both GZ and TM leading up to the altercation. Motive also comes into play - there was no motive for TM to try and kill a stranger that night using only his brawn. Sometimes you need to ask the question 'why?' because that's what the jurors will be doing during deliberations.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Stupid testosterone ####### happens all the time. Men are basically manipulated by their testicles. You would never see a woman in the same situation. You notice how many women in this case have their men under control? I guess it is not George's fault his woman failed to train him properly.

She probably lets him leave without being emptied.

But you really can't blame GZs wife for not doing her job and causing TMs death. As a feminist I object to that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes. I believe this will go to the jury but only because that kid appears to have initially ran away and initially tried to avoid confrontation.

It may come down to asking the jury to define carrying a gun and following someone with intent to confront them then getting the confrontation you wanted and killing the guy COULD be interpreted as instigating the incident. No self-defense and no stand your ground defense applies if you start the fight.

It will go to the jury.

Not because of anything except an attempt to appease racists.

GZ will say he did not start the fight. Lets ask TM if that's true.

I do not think the intent is there either and I also believe he will be found not guilty. A point COULD be made that forcing a confrontation with someone who is actively running away from one while carrying a loaded gun does fall under the "willful disregard" definition of 2nd degree murder and that's why there is no way this won't go to the jury to decide.

The only reason there is a trial is racism. The only reason it will go to a jury is racism.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Victims in murder cases never get a chance to speak on their behalf, whereas defendants can and often plead the 5th, making your silly argument moot.

Finding GZ guilty won't require any speculation from the jury, just a reasonable refutation of GZ's claim of self defense, weighed against the verifiable behavior, actions and words by both GZ and TM leading up to the altercation. Motive also comes into play - there was no motive for TM to try and kill a stranger that night using only his brawn. Sometimes you need to ask the question 'why?' because that's what the jurors will be doing during deliberations.

A history of violent behavior with " there is some crazy ### cracker following me" witnesses testifying that Cracker is how they think of white people.

Eye witness testimony that TM was on Top of GZ beating the ####### out of him

It was TM that approached GZ. If GZ wanted an altercation why did he not get out of the car when TM circled the car staring at him.

TM had hidden from GZ very near his home and GZ was walking back to his vehicle after being asked to not follow him. TM approached him and asked him, why you following me.? If TM had a fear why did he not just let GZ walk off without confronting him ?

Sorry but this whole thing was a sham The prosecutors knew what happened. They had all this accounts, everyone knew it was self defense, but then here come the feds and the race baiters.

Keep in mind this has been the prosecutions witnesses this week, but yet they have mostly supported GZ version of the events.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But then you'd have it. Black guy kills white guy - guilty. White guy kills black guy - not guilty. And that despite the fact the former had a better case of self defense than the latter. Some degree of outrage as a result of such scenario would be rather understandable. I don't see Zimmermann walking, though.

Just ot interject into your last ditch effort and web of distortion and mis truths.

GZ is not a white man.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How to get away with murder in Florida. Punch yourself in the face, grab your Glock and look for a victim. No witness, no problem. Brilliant.

Works in many places, not just FL. I would suggest you discuss a change with your state legislators. Otherwise it is within the law. Get over it.

Your suggested "solution" is a lynching. A conviction with no evidence, no witnesses. You want that for black people also, or just white people?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Dude scroll up and look at your posts. Almost all speculation. Pot meet kettle.

GZ is white and is not entitled to a trial based on law and evidence. He is guilty because he is white and if the evidence does not show that, then just throw out the evidence and cook up something using speculation. Don't you get it Karee?

When all the state's witnesses make the defense's case for them, then just start talking about nonsense like MMA weight classes.

The people you see here doing that were the ones that were supposed to be appeased by the puppet show trial. They are supposed to get it, they are supposed to see that TM needed to be shot and GZ was the right guy to do it...but they won't. Shocking, isn't it?

I have nothing whatever to do with that MMA #######, but I do practice shooting twice/week when I am home. And I carry a gun for the purpose of killing anyone that threatens me or my family. I see no reason to mince words about it, that IS what it is for. It is legal and I do so. I carry a large caliber handgun with bullets specifically designed to increase lethality. I choose a large caliber as it has more than 100 years of proven abilty to kill people very reliably. I carry it with the hammer cocked and the safety on, a live round under the hammer...as it was designed to be carried. This is where the term "cocked and locked" comes from. If someone attacks me or my family I will do my best to kill them. Practicing and being prepared to do so does not make me the criminal. Killing someone is the 2nd to last thing I ever want to do.

GZ was attacked and killed his assailant.

Just ot interject into your last ditch effort and web of distortion and mis truths.

GZ is not a white man.

Racists hate Hispanics also. GZ is white AND Hispanic, double reason to lynch him.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yes, but as I wrote before, it's a catch 22. If he walks and there's outrage and riots, it will feed into the stereotype that we are uncivilized animals and TM had it coming since it was inevitable for him to become violent and GZ was justified for killing him. If he walks and we show restraint, then it sends the message that killing a black person has little to no consequence and you will have a lot more Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis killings in the future.

So let me dive into this ??

By "WE" do you mean the members of VJ P and R ? I suspect by we you mean "black people" which you have spent many many words telling me do not act and think as one body of people and those of us who think they do are racist.. Also since you said we, I am taking that includes yourself ?

The evidence in the case clearly points to TM being the aggressor and that GZ version of the events being credible. ( I admit that can change). So you are suggesting that if the evidence and the justice system proves GZ is not guilty or there is enough doubt to not convict., it is going to take great restraint for you and black people in general to not riot and kill white people in retaliation because they sure sounds like what you implied.

So by your logic if he gets 20 years despite the mountain of evidence, that he acted in self defense, does it suggest that,as white people, we don't defend ourselves if violently attacked and that we completely don't acknowledge the overwhelming problem of violence being disproportional committed by young black males today. It's almost 90% in my community, but yet when I encounter dredlocked droopy pant wearing hoodie wearing young black male who can not speak without saying MOFO I am supposed to assume my threat risk is the same as a 60 year old woman or be labeled a racist ?

It is disappointing you would suggest that You and your race would have to show restraint to not commit violence .Should GZ be able to get a fair trial. ? Have you thought, Gee maybe its possible TM did come out of hiding and very violently attack him ? It was TM uttering Racial Slurs before the attack. It was TM who told GZ, I am going to kill you. Close your eyes and imagineif TM was white and GZ was black, and white Tm was a young redneck with a violent past and had said " there is some crazy #### Nword following me" and his white trash girlfriend had lied on the stand and changed her story 100 times. Can you say you would feel the same way.

Lastly when I suggested a few weeks back, that blacks may riot if the verdict did not go their way I was ridiculed and it was implied I was racist for thinking blacks might act this way.

Now you, and many other black TM apologist that I saw on TV are hinting the same thing. So do we convict a man because we are scared black people will riot ?

Despicable

Edited June 29, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A history of violent behavior with " there is some crazy #### cracker following me" witnesses testifying that Cracker is how they think of white people.

No one on that jury is going to be anymore impressed by whatever character witness of the victim will be admissible by the court than the character witness of GZ, assuming impartiality to any evidence of both parties, and ultimately less miniscule to the relevance of what both parties said and did prior to the confrontation.