| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
here you go JPS...
|
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!!! |
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
here you go JPS...
|
|
#88
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
here you go JPS...
|
|
#89
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
here you go JPS...
|
|
#90
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![Eisboch[_8_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
