George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
"George Zimmerman is soft."
-
"When I attained the gun, the license, and the training; I decided I was 'prepared to use it' at any time, wherever I went while legally carrying it."so then they ask him was he prepared to use it....
even if he says no....he did use it.....
so by definition of him using it, it shows that he was prepared to use it once he approached trayvon...
when he got out of the car he knew that the outcome of this approach could possibly end with trayvon dying.....
we cannot say the same fro trayvon because he did not begin this altercation with a deadly weapon on him....
Not a particularly damning or significant statement.
"Profiling" doesn't equate to murder or manslaughter, so that doesn't seem particularly significant either.DOC H0LL!DAY wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
"I have a concealed carry license, so I carried the gun everywhere I was legally permitted."; then he'd say he approached Treyvon because he looked suspicious.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Easy response, "I did not expect an altercation. I had no intention for violence to occur."; then he would claim that Treyvon started the fight.that's sketchy as ? though...
i mean there's a reason why police will taze a person versus shooting them... you use the force the pertains to the threat.....
by carrying a gun and no other means of defending oneself it's reasonable to say that zimmerman was prepared to use lethal force against any physical threat.....if that can be established..then his approach of trayvon means that he was approaching him in full expectation of using lethal force if the altercation got outta hand at any time....which it did....and he did....
i mean it may be a hypothetical question that would send the defense crazy, but i would ask george zimmerman would he have approached trayvon if he didn't know he had the gun on him.....
even if the question gets thrown out the jury can't unhear the ?
so why bring the gun? and why approach when the police were on their way?
Which ultimately proves the prosecution was right when they said he profiled him. -
so then they ask him was he prepared to use it....
even if he says no....he did use it.....
so by definition of him using it, it shows that he was prepared to use it once he approached trayvon...
when he got out of the car he knew that the outcome of this approach could possibly end with trayvon dying.....
we cannot say the same fro trayvon because he did not begin this altercation with a deadly weapon on him....
but how are you going to get the answer to that question? Preparing to use it if he was in danger is different than preparing to use it just b/c he can
"'when you left the car to approach trayvon martin, were you prepared to use your fire arm?"
either "i'm always prepared to defend myslelf withing the boundaries of the law"
or he never even takes the stand -
idgaf bout this ? 's diet & exercise
-
Why did I get flagged for?
-
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.". -
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »"When I attained the gun, the license, and the training; I decided I was 'prepared to use it' at any time, wherever I went while legally carrying it."
Not a particularly damning or significant statement.
.
lol
either "i'm always prepared to defend myslelf withing the boundaries of the law"
or he never even takes the stand
if that question comes up... i guarantee his answer won't be that polished....
not only that, i'd repeat the question...it's a yes or no answer...
did you get out the car with the intent of using the weapon?? -
he talkd about trayvon as if he was an nfl vet..
-
that knock knock joke though.....rofl
-
i understood his point but it was just stupid..that knock knock joke though.....rofl
-
I got my free George Zimmerman t-shirts ready..im gonna make some big bucks baby.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life -
armed himself with the sidewalk... thats gonna fly..
-
I'd assume you'd hear, "Objection! Leading the witness." or some ? before getting that far.Gold_Certificate wrote: »"When I attained the gun, the license, and the training; I decided I was 'prepared to use it' at any time, wherever I went while legally carrying it."
Not a particularly damning or significant statement.
.
lol
either "i'm always prepared to defend myslelf withing the boundaries of the law"
or he never even takes the stand
if that question comes up... i guarantee his answer won't be that polished....
not only that, i'd repeat the question...it's a yes or no answer...
did you get out the car with the intent of using the weapon?? -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I'd assume you'd hear, "Objection! Leading the witness." or some ? before getting that far.Gold_Certificate wrote: »"When I attained the gun, the license, and the training; I decided I was 'prepared to use it' at any time, wherever I went while legally carrying it."
Not a particularly damning or significant statement.
.
lol
either "i'm always prepared to defend myslelf withing the boundaries of the law"
or he never even takes the stand
if that question comes up... i guarantee his answer won't be that polished....
not only that, i'd repeat the question...it's a yes or no answer...
did you get out the car with the intent of using the weapon??
lol, we'll see....i hope it happens -
-
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general. -
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense -
DOC H0LL!DAY wrote: »
Sounds like racism, bruh. -
@Matt- : sure, the possibility exists. but george zimmerman was instructed by a police dispatcher not to engage. and he didn't tell the dispatcher he was armed.
"Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?"
and the above sentence does not mean "i'm gonna follow your instructions, and wait near where i saw him when i called you." it means, "imma follow this ? , 'cause i'm the first line of defense against 'these guys'."
-
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense -
AND I die for my hood
TRAYVON -
SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »"George Zimmerman is soft."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiI5bVurSo0
This discussion has been closed.