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.
What you and others do not understand is that it does not matter what happened up to the last five seconds before any physical contact. None of it matters and you will eventually learn that. All the prognostications and imaginations of the wanna be pretend lawyers posting here will not change that. In fact they are demonstrating childlike pretentiousness. The next big story they could be pretend astronauts I suppose
What you and others do not understand is that it does not matter what happened up to the last five seconds before any physical contact. None of it matters and you will eventually learn that. All the prognostications and imaginations of the wanna be pretend lawyers posting here will not change that. In fact they are demonstrating childlike pretentiousness. The next big story they could be pretend astronauts I suppose
I agree with this, any racial profiling introduced by the prosecution notwithstanding. However, what if there was a witness that testified that Zimmerman was the aggressor? To what extent would that influence a jury? Additionally, since Zimmerman has polluted his defense by conspiring to lie to the court, would a jury consider his statements (or testimony) to be unreliable? Would conflicting statements by witnesses muddy the waters even more? I do not see this case as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
What you and others do not understand is that it does not matter what happened up to the last five seconds before any physical contact. None of it matters and you will eventually learn that. All the prognostications and imaginations of the wanna be pretend lawyers posting here will not change that. In fact they are demonstrating childlike pretentiousness. The next big story they could be pretend astronauts I suppose
I love the way you say that so matter of factly. Please look into your crystal ball and tell me what the numbers are for the next powerball drawing.
YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYMORE ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE THAN ANY OTHER "PRETEND LAWYER".
I disagree with you, it does matter what happened in the last five seconds before physical contact and I think the judge and jury will agree that this is relevant. It matters who initiated the confrontation. Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground if he felt that his life was in danger. Why is that so hard for some of you to understand? The question is who was defending themself and who initiated this. Until the judge or jury decides none of us know what is going to happen.
What you and others do not understand is that it does not matter what happened up to the last five seconds before any physical contact. None of it matters and you will eventually learn that. All the prognostications and imaginations of the wanna be pretend lawyers posting here will not change that. In fact they are demonstrating childlike pretentiousness. The next big story they could be pretend astronauts I suppose
So why give an example in which the person that died was committing a crime if it does not matter what lead up to their death?
Why all this talk about Trayvons past(weeds, thug, etc)?
Why talk about Zimmerman's past (trying to protecting his home, had a CCP)?
And unless you're a lawyer in Fl, you are just as pretentious as the rest of us. See you in Space camp this summer.
I disagree with you, it does matter what happened in the last five seconds before physical contact and I think the judge and jury will agree that this is relevant. It matters who initiated the confrontation. Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground if he felt that his life was in danger. Why is that so hard for some of you to understand? The question is who was defending themself and who initiated this. Until the judge or jury decides none of us know what is going to happen.
It is clear that zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If he had stayed in his vehicle, Trayvon would have continued walking home (and he would have gotten there).
It is clear that zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If he had stayed in his vehicle, Trayvon would have continued walking home (and he would have gotten there).
I agree with you there, but Zimmerman's fate will be determined in a courtroom, so I am not sure why anyone thinks they know exactly what the outcome will be. I am of the opinion that he should rot in prison, but I would say the same thing about Casey Anthony and we know what happened there.
I think Zimmerman is an unstable, reckless idiot and I think that if he gets off he'll do something to get himself back in. Between the lying, the numerous calls to police and the poor judgement he used when he exited his vehicle to follow an innocent teenager, apparently he thinks he is entitled to do whatever he wants. Aggression, dishonesty and stupidity is not a good combination.
Fact is, if Trayvon Martin feared for his life and therefore used every once of strength in his body to defend himself against his stalker/attacker who probably had bandished his weapon at Trayvin Martin in an attempt to get him to stop. The shooting is therefore a murder.
Trayvon Martin was standing HIS ground against a man with a gun and a known criminal record.
You cannot stalk someone you have just met, by definition. Stalking involves repeated harassment.
I actually made this point a few months ago, that if Trayvon lived and was charged with assault he may have had a good case for standing his ground. However the more we know of the case it appears he simply overreacted or escalated an already tense situtation. He sustained no injuries except for bruised knuckles and the gunshot wound. So it's highly unlikely that Zimmerman struck him first or at all.
Unless you consider following someone at a distance cause to physically attack someone than Trayvon's SYG claim seems somewhat weak.
I agree with this, any racial profiling introduced by the prosecution notwithstanding. However, what if there was a witness that testified that Zimmerman was the aggressor? To what extent would that influence a jury? Additionally, since Zimmerman has polluted his defense by conspiring to lie to the court, would a jury consider his statements (or testimony) to be unreliable? Would conflicting statements by witnesses muddy the waters even more? I do not see this case as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
They have no such witness that's the problem. They have no idea who started the fight. Zimmerman's little game with the court may cost him though. It was a foolish thing to do.
The media in general promoted the view that a white racist armed vigilante is guilty of murder and was forever free with the help of racist cops and prosecutor.
Okay, so then why is it difficult for people to accept that the media lies about other things? As soon as something negative is leaked about Trayvon Martin, it just has to be true. Although he had no criminal record and was unarmed on the night of the shooting, and a surveillance video proves he actually was just walking to the store to buy a snack, all someone has to do is write, "Did you hear that Martin did such-and-such, and it's gospel. You can't have it both ways.
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.
