OFFICIAL: George Zimmerman Trial Thread Week 1

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jun 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ncgatr1
    Offline

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,349
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,039
    I didn't know Martin was armed with a piece of concrete sidewalk as he smashed Zimmerman's head? If this is true, it would be case closed in a self defense argument. I never heard of this in the media reports. So from what I have gathered as actual evidence, not circumstantial. Martin was on top beating Zimmerman and attacking him with a piece of concrete. The ballistics show the gun was fired from Zimmerman in a position of being on the ground and fired upward into Martin. The injuries sustained are consistent with Zimmerman's statements. The prosecution's evidence, the voice on the tape, debunked. Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin, here-say. I just don't see how the prosecution can win with circumstantial claims and no hard evidence.
  2. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,987
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,787
    That fact, if proved, would satisfy pretty much every corner of self-defense, even if Zimmerman had been the initial aggressor, since a piece of concrete is the exact sort of escalation that restores his right of self-defense.
  3. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,561
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,099
    From the dispatcher's words:

    "not commands, just suggestions."

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  4. ncgatr1
    Offline

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,349
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,039
    Yeah it would be pretty damning for the prosecution. The fact that West made that statement in his opening does not bid well for the prosecution. West knows they have the evidence to back his claim.
  5. Shade45
    Offline

    Shade45 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,715
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,317
    I believe he was saying that TM used the concrete ground to bash GZ head on.

    He didnt say TM had concrete in his hand smashing GZ's head with it.
  6. ncgatr1
    Offline

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,349
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,039
    I thought West said he was armed with a piece of concrete, maybe I misunderstood him.
  7. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Wait who claimed the dispatcher "demanded" something? I don't think a dispatcher is in position to demand anything at all.
  8. Swamp_of_Gators
    Offline

    Swamp_of_Gators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Are you trying to stalk me?
    Ratings Received:
    +972
    source; washington post

    If that quote is correct, it sounds like what we've been hearing all along. He just describes the sidewalk as a weapon.
  9. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,492
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,064
    Nana... shade... Chomp... Fred... 108...

    Take your pick. They all claimed that the dispatcher demanded that Zimmerman not follow Trayvon. Even claimed that because Zimmerman ignored the demand that he was guilty of stalking. Only, most of us pointed out that even if the dispatcher had "demanded" Zimmerman not pursue Trayvon, it meant nothing because the dispatcher held no authority to make such a demand.

    It seemed to be a major cog in the machine they have been using to convict Zimmerman.
  10. Shade45
    Offline

    Shade45 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,715
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,317
    Dont lie on me. I never said that.

    Its been clear and available for everyone to hear he said "we don't need you to do that".

    He never ordered or demanded GZ to do anything...including following.
  11. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,702
    I don't know what's more faulty here--your memory or your reasoning.
  12. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,492
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,064
    Don't backtrack now, guys... You know that was the claim.
  13. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,945
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,372

    Of course it was, Dave. Early on and probably until the defense Motion in Limine, the prosecution-oriented folks contended that it was damning evidence of GZ's vigilantism to have ignored a direct order . . . by a police dispatcher.

    Have we no memories ?
  14. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,945
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,372
    Hey, where's Chompy ?

    Must be making Molotov cocktails somewhere.







    I kid.

    Sorta.
  15. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,996
    Front row, fourth from the left behind the defendant.
  16. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,702
    The dispatcher issue has nothing to do with whether or not GZ had to obey it.

    It had to do with preventing the incident if he had.
  17. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,492
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,064
    I was thinking the same thing. I did notice, however, that as Chomp's posts started to wane, Shade's posing stepped up a notch or two...
  18. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,492
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,064
    Oh sure... NOW you say it.

    A few months ago, the fact that Zimmerman "disobeyed a direct order from a police dispatcher" was reason enough to convict him.

    You guys are so funny...
  19. BobK89
    Online

    BobK89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,557
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,270
    Intersting, I had not heard that ruling. But, did the dispatcher tell him NOT to follow TM, or in response to GZ saying should I follow him, did she say, "we don't need you to do that?"
  20. uftaipan
    Online

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,488
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,996
    Okay, but TM deciding not to go out in a rainstorm for candy and a drink would have likewise "prevented" the incident. Both statements are true but irrelevant. I say again this case comes down to one question alone: Can the state prove that TM did not initiate violence with GZ? Everything else is trivia.

    It doesn't matter if GZ is a racist, violent vigilante and TM was a drug-free honor student; if TM physically started the fight, then GZ is not guilty.

    By contrast, it doesn't matter if GZ was in the right in every other way and TM was a violent, drug-crazed thug in training; if GZ started the fight (more to the point, if the state can prove GZ started the fight), then he is guilty.

    Amazing how we can complicate a situation that is so simple with irrelevancies and emotions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page