BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   here you go JPS... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/157463-here-you-go-jps.html)

Eisboch[_8_] June 28th 13 09:27 PM

here you go JPS...
 


"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.




Califbill June 28th 13 11:10 PM

here you go JPS...
 
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM,
wrote:

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on
the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him.
Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

You keep leaving out the "punch in the nose" and "beat your head on
the concrete" part


Yeah, and the best part about that, absolutely NO Zimmerman DNA on the
kids hands.....

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

Assuming the reports of injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are
accurate, how did he get them?


Self inflicted perhaps? Stranger things have been done to conceal a
crime.


Billie Sol Estes.

BAR[_2_] June 29th 13 02:19 AM

here you go JPS...
 
In article , says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

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

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just
because you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.


It proves that Kevin gets his information about evidence from a TV show.

iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:25 PM

here you go JPS...
 
In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:49:41 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:22:58 PM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:




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.




That's nuts. Zimm was certainly incapacitated (lying on the ground on your back being pummeled by a young, strong 200lb guy qualifies), and that in itself would tend to confuse someone.



OH!!!! So YOU have proof that that's what happened???? HOW?


Courtroom testimony by an eyewitness is all we can go on.

"A man who said he witnessed George Zimmerman?s shooting of Trayvon Martin told a court today that what he saw indicated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman moments before Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.


Under cross examination, he stated that he couldn't tell who was hitting
whom.

?Could you describe who was on top and who was at bottom,? asked prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

?The color on top was dark and the color at bottom was?red,? responded Good referring to the men?s clothing.


Under cross examination he said he couldn't tell the exact color.

At another point he told the court that the person on the bottom had ?lighter skin color.?


And he could tell this on a pitch black rainy night??

Zimmerman is a white Hispanic who was wearing a red and black jacket that night. Martin, who was black, was wearing a dark sweatshirt.

He also said, ?The person on the bottom, I could hear a ?Help.??

Under cross examination by Zimmerman?s lawyer, Good said he believes he saw Martin on top punching Zimmerman ?MMA style,? a reference to mixed martial arts."


He said it MIGHT have been Martin on Zimmerman.

iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:28 PM

here you go JPS...
 
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!!!

iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:30 PM

here you go JPS...
 
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:27:56 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,

says...

On 6/28/2013 12:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

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

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just because
you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.



He watches too much CSI... There are many opinions out there that the
magic done on TV crime shows is causing problems in criminal cases
because of people like Kevin who confuse the TV shows, with reality...


You stupid little twit!!!! Have you EVER heard of "reasonable doubt"???
Lack of DNA can and has done just that in several cases.


The defendant is the only one who benefits from reasonable doubt and
there is plenty in this case


Not true by ANY stretch of the imagination.

iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:32 PM

here you go JPS...
 
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:07:55 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

You think some vigilante accosting and shooting someone isn't an
"issue"????


There is no evidence that Zimmerman accosted anyone. Following and
watching someone on private property is not a crime, nor is even
asking a stranger on private property what he is doing there.

You keep forgetting that


And there is no evidence that it didn't occur that way. You keep
forgetting that Martin has a right to defend himself as well. So, if
Zimmerman comes up to me at a privately owned house of a friend of MINE,
and asks what I'm doing there I HAVE to tell him???? Horse****! Show me
a law that says that.

iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:33 PM

here you go JPS...
 
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:09:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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.


Nor were the people the state was trying to put on the stand according
g to the FBI and the judge.


Cite?

Why is the neighbor taking sides any more than any of the other
witnesses?


Friends tend to do that.



iBoaterer[_3_] June 29th 13 03:34 PM

here you go JPS...
 
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:46:20 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:07:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:


You think some vigilante accosting and shooting someone isn't an
"issue"????

It would be if that's what happened. You have no proof of that. The only thing that we know for certain is that Martin was shot. The rest is conjecture on your part.


I have just as much proof of that as Greg has proof that Martin attacked
Zimmerman first.


Unfortunately for the state, it is up to them to prove Zimmerman
wasn't attacked beyond a reasonable doubt.

If this was not politically motivated, this would have been thrown out
at the preliminary hearing or simply not prosecuted at all as the
state originally wanted to do.
This is a witch hunt and the city of Sanford is already planning on
the riot that will happen when Zimmerman walks. I suppose you will
support the rioters too. Fortunately Gov Scott won't


You really should quit listening to FOX pundits and listen to what
lawyers have to say about this case.....

Eisboch[_8_] June 29th 13 03:57 PM

here you go JPS...
 


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

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!!!

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

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling
the truth.

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained
in the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking down
a street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and
where Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a
street sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This
is when the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told
Zimmerman that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and
started to return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some
bushes and challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem,
homie?" Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the
nose by Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get
on top of Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his
head on a concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin
was going for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's
up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com