Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure we've all read the "it was the Black guy" excuses in the past. I'm certainly not saying Black people don't commit crimes, but when Susan Smith said a Black man stole her car with her babies inside after she drowned them, her story seemed plausible to most people.
I'm also not saying that's the case here, but people have a much easier time believing that Trayvon Martin did something wrong to cause his own death because he was Black.
So Zimmerman was black as well now we are learning, so what's your point, that this was more of the 95% black on black deaths?
I've seen actual real criminal cases where the defendant did just that, self-inflicted wounds. One example is a man murdered his wife one night. He stayed beside her body on a water bed all night until the morning. He claimed someone broke in and killed her. She was stabbed to death. He had stab wounds himself, which were later determined to be self-inflicted. Medical Examiners have investigators and do a lot of forensic testing; amazing what they can find.
Also remember that case in Boston I think it was where the husband killed his wife in the car and claimed they were attacked by someone else; the husband had some wounds but the wife was shot in the head? Later it was determined that the husband shot his wife and that his wounds were self-inflicted. Charles Stuart was his name. Charles Stuart (murderer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In real life, self-inflicted wounds created for a defense, is not unheard of or all that uncommon.
There were people there before the shooting and just after the shooting when GZ rolled TM off of him.
When exactly in your universe did GZ get the time away from witnesses to do anything to himself under your theory?
Your theory doesn't have a chance to be true. There were witnesses.
I don't think you are lying, maybe misinterpreting what you may have seen. If you find it share it. I would like to read it.
Of course after the shot some would see GM later on top somewhere near TM after he got out from under.
Once TM was dead he had to go down to the ground. At that point it is impossible to have TM on top of anything but the ground unless he was a Zombie.
No proof he was pursuing him. In fact he was retreating to his car when he was confronted by Martin who doubled around the buildings to attack him
There's no "proof" of this either, just GZ's statement...unless of course you were there and saw GZ walking back to his truck and saw TM confront and attack him....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days-in-Florida
Who said he was angry? Or did you make that one up as well?
Again, are you for no one ever being able to defend themselves from an angry person with a history of drug abuse who was hell bent on breaking someones nose and banging their head into the concrete.
I know who the angry one was.
Zimmerman will be found not guilty and acted in self defense. Wait and see. So far unless someone pulls a rabbit or a liar out of a hat there is no evidence he did anything wrong at all.
Do you really?!? Why do we even need another hearing or a possible jury trial if you have all the answers? Or did you just make that one up...
I did not believe Susan Smith's story for one second...the first time I saw her speak...I knew she did something to those poor babies...
My theory is Trayvon's possibly reacted out of fear (Fight or Flight), I think either he thought GZ's might be reaching for a gun or he saw the gun during the verbal exchange and his first reaction was to fight, rather than turn his back on GZ...
I'm with you on that first part.
Trayvon had a recent history of defacing property, possession of jewlry that he couldn't account for, a burglary tool, a drug pipe and substance in a bag. Three suspensions.
Doesn't sound like an innocent anything anymore that would be shy.
Went by the name No "Limit N-word", talked about F'ing a B word everywhere on his posts.
Not a mensa poster child at all.
There's no "proof" of this either, just GZ's statement...unless of course you were there and saw GZ walking back to his truck and saw TM confront and attack him....
Do you really?!? Why do we even need another hearing or a possible jury trial if you have all the answers? Or did you just make that one up...
The officer representing the Prosecution did say during the bail hearing that there was no evidence in hand of GZ pursuing TM.
Trayvon had a recent history of defacing property, possession of jewlry that he couldn't account for, a burglary tool, a drug pipe and substance in a bag. Three suspensions.
Doesn't sound like an innocent anything anymore that would be shy.
Went by the name No "Limit N-word", talked about F'ing a B word everywhere on his posts.
Not a mensa poster child at all.
Still doesn't preclude him from reacting in fear...
There's no "proof" of this either, just GZ's statement...unless of course you were there and saw GZ walking back to his truck and saw TM confront and attack him....
Do you really?!? Why do we even need another hearing or a possible jury trial
The answer is we do not. There is no evidence justifying charging Zimmerman with any crime. A media lynching is what we have here.
The officer representing the Prosecution did say during the bail hearing that there was no evidence in hand of GZ pursuing TM.
Really? Show me!
I watched the bond hearing and he was asked if he could say who started the fight. In fact, when asked by Zimmerman's attorney why he used the word "profile" he said (from the transcript of the hearing)
GILBREATH: I don't recall. This was a collaborative answer. Excuse me. A collaborative document.
O'MARA: When you swore that to be true, what did you mean that to indicate?
GILBREATH: That Zimmerman saw Martin, formed an idea in his head, and contacted the Sanford police department. With no facts.
When asked about the incident.....
O'MARA: Do you know who started the fight?
DALE GILBREATH, STATE INVESTIGATOR: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
The answer is we do not. There is no evidence justifying charging Zimmerman with any crime. A media lynching is what we have here.
That is simply your opinion. You have not seen the State's evidence files. You have not even seen the extent of the Defense's evidence files. Therefore, you cannot possibly know how much evidence there is in this case at this point. If you are basing your opinion on what info has been released to the public, then your opinion seems to be based on emotion. If you had much experience in law enforcement or the judicial system, you would know that neither the state nor the defense has to plead and reveal their entire case in the court of public opinion prior to trial.
You do realize that the jury is the entity which is assigned the duty of fact finders, aren't you? When there are disputed facts, as in this case, that's why a case goes to trial. If the state and defense can at some point AGREE on the facts and come to a plea agreement, then there won't be any need for a jury, or in this case, a judge in the event of an immunity hearing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do we even need another hearing or a possible jury trial if you have all the answers? Or did you just make that one up...
You have not seen the State's evidence files. You have not even seen the extent of the Defense's evidence files. Therefore, you cannot possibly know how much evidence there is in this case at this point. If you are basing your opinion on what info has been released to the public, then your opinion seems to be based on emotion. If you had much experience in law enforcement or the judicial system, you would know that neither the state nor the defense has to plead and reveal their entire case in the court of public opinion prior to trial.