Trayvon Case Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
whatdidyousay! said:
...the judge asked Zimmerman new lawyer if he was going to be bring his client in to court and Zimmerman was standing right there. The judge was looking for a White guy and only saw a Hispanic guy. Is the news media trying to cause more racial tensions between Blacks and Whites??
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was weird. Zimmerman was standing right next to his lawyer, and the judge looked right thru him, like he was invisible.
 
Reba said:
Yeah, that was weird. Zimmerman was standing right next to his lawyer, and the judge looked right thru him, like he was invisible.
Click to expand...

Maybe the judge looked at his last name "Zimmerman" and was expecting the person be a caucasian, and not a hispanic one?
 
kokonut said:
Maybe the judge looked at his last name "Zimmerman" and was expecting the person be a caucasian, and not a hispanic one?
Click to expand...
You mean, the judge was profiling? Gasp!


:lol:
 
Reba said:
Nope. No point is proven. You don't know what Zimmerman's intent was. There was nothing in that 911 recording to prove that Zimmerman was seeking his own revenge against Martin or that the reason he was following Martin was so that he could shoot and kill him.
Click to expand...

that's what you think. I think prosecutors thought otherwise.
 
Jiro said:
actually it is illegal to take matters into your own hands unless a person is dying or being hurt by a thug. that's why we prosecute vigilante. now we shall see if Zimmerman is a vigilante or victim.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal and it's not being a vigilante by following someone who you think is breaking the law or is suspicious especially in an area where there have been past burglaries!
 
Jiro said:
that's what you think. I think prosecutors thought otherwise.
Click to expand...
Nope. Even the prosecutors know that nothing is yet proven. Nothing is proven until the case is over. If it was already proven, there would be no need for a trial.

They might think they have a provable case but that's not the same as actually proving a case.
 
I'd be very surprised if George gets away with nothing in the end. The world these days, it's enough to make some passionate individuals go and bring forth the death threats they've been giving him.

whatdidyousay! said:
How do you know who was on top or the bottom first! The bottom line is if Zimmerman has listen to the cops and not had follow Trayvon he would still be alive.
Click to expand...

On the Top vs Bottom issue, bullet entry/exit tests, ballistics, whatever GSR and residual tests should hopefully be able to determine the proper information on whether George or Trayvon was on top when the shot occurred.

I have a feeling that the eyewitnesses only accounted for portions of the fight and it is entirely possible the two changed positions rolling on the grass. There are other events that could have occurred during that small window of time, and if George actually shot Trayvon while he was on the ground, it only can look worse for his trial.
 
naisho said:
I'd be very surprised if George gets away with nothing in the end. The world these days, it's enough to make some passionate individuals go and bring forth the death threats they've been giving him.



On the Top vs Bottom issue, bullet entry/exit tests, ballistics, whatever GSR and residual tests should hopefully be able to determine the proper information on whether George or Trayvon was on top when the shot occurred.

I have a feeling that the eyewitnesses only accounted for portions of the fight and it is entirely possible the two changed positions rolling on the grass. There are other events that could have occurred during that small window of time, and if George actually shot Trayvon while he was on the ground, it only can look worse for his trial.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily if he was on the bottom while getting the back of his head slammed into the ground repeatedly would certainly change the picture.
 
Jiro said:
looks like you're not going to wait to hear all facts at court whether or not if Zimmerman is an aggressor.


I'm loving how you continue to be extremely confused or purposely obtuse when you know very well what the truth is. Correction - the fallacy is that you're always innocent whenever you shoot. shoot first, ask later. and nobody can challenge you since he's dead. case closed. no question asked.
Click to expand...

Actually the fallacy here is that you have already deemed GZ guilty before all the facts have been presented in court.

He is innocent.
 
Steinhauer said:
Actually the fallacy here is that you have already deemed GZ guilty before all the facts have been presented in court.

He is innocent.
Click to expand...

By the bolded statement above, aren't you doing the same thing you are stating that Jiro is doing but with a different conclusion?
 
CSign said:
By the bolded statement above, aren't you doing the same thing you are stating that Jiro is doing but with a different conclusion?
Click to expand...

Not at all. We have been repeatedly saying this, suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
 
kokonut said:
Not at all. We have been repeatedly saying this, suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

In the post Steinhauer said, "he is innocent". Not, "...until proven guilty."

I perceived that to be him stating that Zimmerman is innocent.
 
CSign said:
In the post Steinhauer said, "he is innocent". Not, "...until proven guilty."

I perceived that to be him stating that Zimmerman is innocent.
Click to expand...

He is innocent. You may not like it but he is innocent until the court says otherwise.
 
CSign said:
In the post Steinhauer said, "he is innocent". Not, "...until proven guilty."

I perceived that to be him stating that Zimmerman is innocent.
Click to expand...
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, IF they are found guilty.
 
Reba said:
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, IF they are found guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes Reba, I understand that.

Steinhauer made a blanket statement that Zimmerman was innocent. Not that he was innocent until proven guilty.. That is in the same spirit as someone saying he is guilty, before the trial begins and facts are presented. That was my point.
 
kokonut said:
He is innocent. You may not like it but he is innocent until the court says otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm not focused on this case like some, and I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. I do hope that as facts are presented, the judge/jury makes an appropriate determination of his guilt or innocence. I was simply making an observation.
 
CSign said:
Yes Reba, I understand that.

Steinhauer made a blanket statement that Zimmerman was innocent. Not that he was innocent until proven guilty.. That is in the same spirit as someone saying he is guilty, before the trial begins and facts are presented. That was my point.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for what spirit it was in but I can speak for the law. The law states that Zimmerman is innocent at this time. To say that he is guilty before the trial is incorrect. To say that he is innocent before the trial is correct.

So, at this very moment, the only thing we can say is that Zimmerman is innocent.

If he is convicted at the trial, then we can say that Zimmerman is guilty.

Until then, it can be said that Zimmerman is suspected of being guilty, accused of a crime, or charged with a crime. But we can't say that he is guilty.
 
Reba said:
I can't speak for what spirit it was in but I can speak for the law. The law states that Zimmerman is innocent at this time. To say that he is guilty before the trial is incorrect. To say that he is innocent before the trial is correct.

So, at this very moment, the only thing we can say is that Zimmerman is innocent.

If he is convicted at the trial, then we can say that Zimmerman is guilty.

Until then, it can be said that Zimmerman is suspected of being guilty, accused of a crime, or charged with a crime. But we can't say that he is guilty.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
CSign said:
By the bolded statement above, aren't you doing the same thing you are stating that Jiro is doing but with a different conclusion?
Click to expand...

No.

Until or IF he is proven guilty, he is completely innocent.

I think his accusers are not innocent though (I am referring to the MSM). They are guilty of stirring up racial discord, they are guilty of heavily editing/altering the 911 call, they are guilty of releasing a heavily grainy video claiming GZ was not injured (thereby implying the police, the medical workers and the Prosecutor Wolfinger all covered this up).

Now, they are claiming Zimmerman is lying about Trayvon following him to his car after he hung up with the 911 dispatcher.

You even have people claimimg Trayvon was defending himself from Zimmerman and that was why he was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

Ironic isn't it? They want to repeal the SYG law but they want to use it to defend Trayvon's actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top