BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...

On 6/28/2013 3:22 PM, Eisboch wrote:

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

The witness who testified this morning (Cook) said he was of the
opinion that the screams for help came from Zimmerman .... who was
on
his back with Martin on top. He admitted he can't be 100 percent
sure, but that was his impression.

He wasn't an audio expert, he was a neighbor clearly taking sides.

--------------------------------------------

Neighbor? Neighbor of whom? He testified he didn't know either
one
of the people involved. Who's *side* would he take?

So, in your mind, a witness to the altercation who is a stranger to
both parties, testifies under oath in a court room with
"embellishments" to favor the prosecution?

Are you so convinced that Zimmerman is guilty that the facts just
don't
matter?

He may still be found guilty. The prosecution is now focusing on
making a case that he (Zimmerman) was not in any "immediate danger".
That's why they are trying to show that his injuries did not cause
him
to be confused or incapacitated.

All Zimm needs to do is state that he perceived himself to be in
danger.
The extent of his injuries is irrelevant but do make a plausible case
for him being concerned for his safety.

--------------------------------------------

Yup, your right. I remember our safety instructor for the gun
classes telling us to never concede that you felt anything less than
in immanent danger of great bodily harm or death.

This is a very interesting and well conducted trial so far, IMO.
Both sides are doing their jobs and are seeking the truth. So far the
only major contradiction to what happened was by Martin's girlfriend
who's only access to what was going on was via a cell phone. She
wasn't there.

Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger. He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!