RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

Yeah, your still reading to much into a picture Doc. Try calming down a little bit.

Because she's not that bright. She tried to walk it back several times when she knew she gave favorable testimony to Zimmerman's defense.
She unwittingly gave truthful testimony for the defense, despite her obvious attempts to lie in favor of Trayvon. The racial hatred of "creepy ass cracker" moved the pointing finger of racial motivation to Trayvon, and away from Zimmerman.

I'm not Doc. I'm just his alt. And there's nothing to read into.

You posted a picture of him smiling and then tried to claim that, by virtue of him smiling, he's been lying the whole time. Then you post a gif from RAW of him laughing.

So? Your making assumptions. Maybe if you pretended I killed a black kid I would get fairer treatment?

Interesting analysis of the strength or lack there of of the prosecution's case here.

I tend to think that the author is a little too pro-defense, Which may be understandable given his role as a self defense expert. However the posts do point out that what was once portrayed as a clear-cut case of murder by the media is anything but.

His analysis seems so one sided. He talks about Zimmerman being clinicly obese as being a reason that he couldn't have caught up to Martin. He's gained a bunch of weight since but the night he killed Martin he didn't look overweight at all. So I question how accurate he is too. I do have to agree with him though about the prosecution looking like they over charged. I know you had brought it up way back but I thought the prosecution must have something to back it up. It's hard to see with what they have left how they can justify that charge.

Most of the news media reported what was known at the time btw. There isn't anything wrong that.

There is if it inaccurate. For example, NBC editing the tape. Even if that isn't illegal it's still wrong and is part of why this case is where it is today.

Zimmerman still would be on trial for killing Martin and people were upset before somebody at NBC essentially pulled a Breitbart with the editing. We still had a kid who went to the store and ended up shot dead with the killer saying it wasn't his fault.

And, yet again, you omit that the "kid who went to the store" attacked the man who killed him.

From lying outright to lying by omission. Your name should be a pejorative for it.

Just because Zimmerman alleges that's what Martin did and has a couple of minor injuries doesn't make his story true P.

The injuries themselves--on both individuals--indicate that. Not Zimmerman.

A battered brain box and lacerated knuckles. You do the math.

Even you use a fuzzy word like "indicates" pariah. Having some evidence that supports a story just doesn't make it true.

When the alternative explanation involves the absurd, the evidence at hand becomes empirical. After all, it is that evidence that illustrates the absurdity of the alternatives.

MEM, why do you hate George Zimmerman so much?

Because if Obama had had a teenaged son to molest he would have looked like Trayvon?

The alternative isn't absurd though. Zimmerman could have easilly started the fight and killed Martin.

Except there's absolutely nothing to suggest that aside from your own wishful supposition. If the situation had played out the way you hoped it did, all signs would point to Zimmerman shooting Martin right off the bat. Not give him time to get close and grapple with him.



That's what I want to know. With how much he's going out of his way to overzealously castigate the man, you'd think he raped his both his mother and his father--to say nothing of the dog.

Way to turn "reasonable doubt" and "presumption on innocence" on their respective heads, there, MEM.

That being said, the prosecution still has the memories of the LA riots going for them. That, and the mainstream media's penchant for publishing personal information about people who don't buy into their racial narratives, could lead a jury into thinking they'd better "do the right thing" to keep their homes from being burned down.

That simply isn't true. Martin's friend for example who we know was on the phone provided evidence. You may dissmiss her testimony as not credible but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as well as other evidence that conflicts with Zimmerman's account. May I also remind you that Zimmerman, not Martin is the one who has assaulted a police officer and has an exwife that has accussed him of domestic abuse. We also know he's willing to lie to the court about much smaller things like a second passport and his financial status. Even willing to talk in code with his wife to try to decieve the court. He has no credability. That is a problem when you kill a kid who had no motive to attack you.

Sorry, that doesn't require me to pretend that Zimmerman couldn't ahve easilly started the fight.





We're already doing this? Unless the jury can convict on manslaughter I doubt you really need to worry that the killer is going to be found guilty of anything.

I could provide you testimony from someone who says the moon is made of cheese. By virtue of the fact that it exists, does it somehow come close to compromising physical evidence against it? The testimony had to corroborate the physical evidence that could be accounted for. It didn't.

And you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that, had he been the one to attack Martin, he would have pulled out his gun in the first place before letting things escalate to a grapple.



Your favorite witness offered a motive when she said he described how he was being spooked by a "creepy ass cracker". Or are you going to be selective with her testimony?

I hope you're right. However, I've seen juries make mistakes or be swayed by fear or prejudice and convict innocent people before.

Treyvon had a history of marijuana use, school suspensions, and fighting.

The racial issues in this case were created by the media, there is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman judged Martin by race alone.

Yet the media will show no responsibility if this mess erupts into riots.

Many are judging this case by distorted facts broadcast by a sensationalist media.

I don't think Zimmerman was completely in the right, but I don't think it's murder.

All of which the judge excluded. Virtually everything that aids the prosecution was admitted, while virtually everything the defense wanted admitted was excluded. Regardless, the prosecution is losing.

I think this is again a case of court appeasement of the black community, to avoid the slightest possible providing of any ruling to feed the accusation of anti-black racial bias of the court. At the expense of equal justice under the law.
But regardless, the prosecution is still losing.

I'd agree that Zimmerman did act with some belligerence that arguably contributed to the situation. But ultimately, all evidence is that he was following at a distance, and all Trayvon Martin had to do was keep his distance until the police arrived.

It was Trayvon Martin who by the physical evidence initiated the attack and unrelentingly rained blows on Zimmerman. As I've said repeatedly, there were no bruises on Trayvon Martin except on his knuckes, indicating that Martin did all the hitting, and Zimmerman was completely on the receiving end, with a documented and photographed broken nose, two documented and photographed black eyes, and documented and photographed lacerations to the head.

And verified by the closest witness, Martin was identified as the one on top raining blows. Until the fatal shot was fired, it was completely a one-sided fight.

This would have gone to court even if Martin had been white. Once they found out Martin was talking to a friend on the phone, Zimmerman lost the advantage of being the only one who could testify as to what happened.

Really? Hadn't the police essentially cleared Zimmerman until the media and Pres. Obama started raising racial tensions?

Nope. The one officer (Serenio?) thought he should be arrested and charged with manslaughter I think early on. I could also be mistaken but once they found that Martin had a friend on the phone and what she had to say, Zimmerman was arrested. The stand your ground law was cited by police at the time as being the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested earlier. Why would you think he was essentially cleared?

From various news accounts at the time, including your own post from approximately 18 months ago:



If the DA says there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and the police say they believe the defendant's claim of self defense, that amounts to being essentially cleared.

The phrasing was that "they accepted" not believed. Considering that the lead investigator felt Zimmerman should have been charged, I also question the phrasing of that sentence.

Plus more evidence did come in after that via Martin's friend who had been on the phone with him. Reguardless of your feellings about her testimony that in itself would call into question Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

Look, I'm sorry but I'm calling "20 plus years of traffic court lawyer expertise--both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney" on this one.

When a defendant isn't charged and the police "accept" his or her story that defendant is essentially cleared.

We can quibble about why law enforcement officials changed their mind. We can disagree on whether they would have given credence to Martin's uneducated, lying, friend but for media pressure.

However, what isn't really in dispute in any commonly accepted legal definition of the term, and given the presumption of innocence, is that the people who counted had originally cleared Zimmerman.

G-man the lead detective on it thought Zimmerman should have been charged. You seem to have a problem with higher ups when it works against Zimmerman but when it does than they're the ones "who count". You might have more legal knowledge but you're not using it impartially. "Essentially cleared" isn't even a legal term but something you just pulled out of your butt.

Btw Zimmerman's willingness to lie about his passport and talking in code to decieve the court also makes him a liar. If he's willing to lie about that than he really has little credability when it comes to how he killed Martin.

As I've told many clients--private and governmental--over the years, there's what you think you know and what you can prove. In a court of law, only the latter counts. In this case, it initially appeared to the police and prosecutors that what could be proven did not warrant charging Zimmerman. Therefore, as a matter of law, he was not guilty and not even subject to arrest or prosecution. If there isn't probable cause to arrest or charge, then someone is essentially "cleared."

It doesn't matter if one officer thinks someone should be charged if the rest of the department and the prosecutor don't. That's just how the law, prosecutors and police agencies work. My awareness of the above does not make me biased just because that fact contradicts your opinion of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

So you feel that until somebody is charged they are cleared?

...and, apparently, Florida is one of the states where the prosecution has the right to make the request as well.

Looks like that's what they're doing now, changing the theory of the case at the last minute to make sure they get a conviction.

This prosecutor is a fucking dirt bag. Every half second is an over-dramatized logical fallacy and mocking repetition of Zimmerman's remarks. I hope beyond hope this jury can see how full of shit he is.

Do closing arguments usually go on this long?

Depends on how serious the charges are. I've seen them go on for hours and, in a few cases, days.