Got it; thanks. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :jerkoff:jerkoff

http://deadstate.org/conservative-ra...-guilty-audio/
He actually bring up a good point:
"Savage went on to say that the gun Zimmerman was carrying did not have the safety on and that there was a bullet chambered, which, according to Savage, showed intent from Zimmerman.

“Had he not chambered a round prior to meeting Trayvon, and had he not taken the safety off — even if Trayvon — during the altercation even if Trayvon had tried to grab the gun away from Zimmerman, had that gun not been chambered with a round and safety off, Trayvon would have had to use two hands. You can’t do it with one hand,” Savage said.

“Because Zimmerman carried a loaded weapon with the safety off, Trayvon Martin is dead,” Savage concluded. “Therefore, the responsibility is in the hands of Zimmerman.”

no he doesn't...


"SAFETY
To achieve highest operator safety, combined with ease of handling, the pistol is
"DOUBLEACTION ONLY". It has no manual safety and the hammer is never
fully cocked."

Crackerhead said what? Do you just make stuff up now?

The exact law is called "Justifiable Use Of Force".

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&U RL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

It blows my mind that anyone would want someone like Zimmerman on their Neighborhood Watch. On face of it all Zimmerman seems like a nice guy, and is concerned about his neighborhood. But the reality is Zimmerman has had a restraining order against him, was charged with assaulting a police, and ordered by the court to take anger management classes. How is someone like Zimmerman allowed on the Neighborhood Watch? How is Zimmerman allowed to legally own a gun?

Do you really want someone like Zimmerman armed patrolling your neighborhood? When you have someone who lives a life of restraining orders, assaulting police officers, and anger management problems and you arm him and send him into the night to "protect the citizens" it's only a matter of time before he shoots and kills someone.

Is this all the defense has?

Right wing gun nut buddies of Zimmerman who is profiting from this by writing books and calling him 'Georgie' on the stand swearing without a doubt it was Zimmerman crying for help? Has anyone from the Zimmerman side not profited from this?

No I do not just make stuff up. What in my post are you accusing me of making up?

Really happy this board is full of amateur prosecutors to keep me up to date on all the proceedings of this case.

He shoved an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of his at a bar so the undercover agent...over charged him...with everything he could...as law enforcement always does. To avoid a trial he was allowed to enter an anger management program...pretty much SOP. No convictions.

He broke off an engagement to a girl and she and he filed for and both were granted restraining order.

Most people that knew/know him describe him as a mild mannered person...as a nice guy.

It is apparent that your mind is easily blown.

You said there is no such law when obviously there is.

I consider myself a "mild mannered person". I've never been arrested, never had a restraining order against me, and never had to attend "court ordered anger management classes".

Zimmerman is a wannabe police officer rejected by the police. He's trolling, looking to start shit, and armed. He was on the neighborhood watch and claims he knows everyone, yet no one knew him at all him and he doesn't seem to know the name of the tree streets in his complex.

He got punched in the face and shot and killed someone.

Pigshit...the law is the Justifiable Use Of Force law...not "Stand your ground" law as the media has nick named the law.

Oh richard.....

Your bias .. or ignorance is showing again

You keep saying that you can't believe we would want "someone like Zimmerman on a neighborhood watch" ...

His restraining order was due to a domestic dispute in which BOTH he and his fiancee had restraining orders against each other. You are going to pre judge him based on this? Really?

Consider the following:


1. Domestic violence is 2 to 4 times more common in police families than in the general population. In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year.

Source 1 Source 2

2. Many of the qualities valued in on-duty police officers can make them dangerous domestic violence offenders. All abusers employ similar methods to control and abuse their intimate partners. Officers however, have skills and tactics not commonly possessed by civilians. Professional training in force, weapons, intimidation, interrogation and surveillance ? along with the cultural climate ? become a dangerous and potentially lethal combination in a domestic situation. Victims face the bias of law enforcement agencies and the legal system, psychological intimidation, and a high lethality risk.

~ Diane Wetendorf All Rights Reserved. (in Domestic Violence by Police Officers. Donald C. Sheehan (ed.) pp 375-382. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice


So I guess we shouldn't want police officers on the neighborhood watches either....


3. The Defense Department doesn?t break down pre- and post-deployment figures, but the fact is that rates of domestic violence in the military have been high for years?two to five times higher than among civilians, depending on which DoD study is consulted.


So I guess we shouldn't want retired military on the neighborhood watches either....


You seem to want to be the judge and jury over everyone .. even without having all the facts. That's an odd stance to take for someone in an industry as marginalized as ours.

Yes...at one time...in years past...Zimmerman applied to become a police officer and apparently changed his mind or he probably would have jumped on this...testified by...
state witness Wendy Dorival.


Wendy Dorival, who coordinated the local Neighborhood Watch Program for the Sanford Police Department, thought so highly of Zimmerman that she tried to recruit him to be a “Citizen on Patrol,” in which he would be supplied with a police department issued patrol car and a uniform of sorts. In sharp contrast to the State’s repeated characterization of Zimmerman as a “wannabe” cop who went over the edge in his pursuit, confrontation, and shooting of Martin, Ms. Dorival regretfully stated that Zimmerman had declined the offer.

In addition Professor Scott Pleasant testified that Zimmerman had told him his career goals were to become an attorney and then a State prosecutor.

Notice "attorney then a prosecutor"...so apparently he no longer wanted to be a police officer.

But Zimmerman wasn't in law enforcement. He couldn't even get that far.

But did she investigate his background?

Maybe he declined the offer because he knew his past would come up and he would be rejected.

I added this to my previous post.

In addition Professor Scott Pleasant testified that Zimmerman had told him his career goals were to become an attorney and then a State prosecutor.

Notice "attorney then a prosecutor"...so apparently he no longer wanted to be a police officer.

BTW his one and only application to be a police officer...years ago...was denied only because he had a bad credit rating.

Wow.. after all that, this is your response? :1orglaugh

This clarifies it for me... you must be trolling.

I have to give credit where it's due though .. you are doing it well :thumbsup

I'm not trolling at all. This is just such an open and shut case that it stuns me that people can believe otherwise.

Zimmerman is an overbearing rejected police officer wannabe who mishandled this situation from the very beginning, failed to follow the instructions of the 9/11 operator, then forced a confrontation in which seventeen year old kid punched in the face, he over reacted, and then shot and killed a kid.

The only purpose of certainty is to reinforce ones own ores pre-existing beliefs. New evidence is produced daily.

That is not what he said.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

troll on, Richard, troll on

You are trolling or just dense.

As presented in court he was not a "police officer wannabe"...but instead wanted to be an attorney/prosecutor...and in fact turned down the offer of being a member of the Police Citizen on Patrol program. Zimmerman clearly is not overbearing according to all testimony presented at trial...just the opposite has been testified to...he has been described as a mild mannered...nice guy is the testimony. As presented in court...by multiple police reports... he did not fail to follow the advice/instructions by the 911 operator. As stated in court by the girl that was on the phone with Martin...it was Martin that confronted Zimmerman not the other way around.

Since your bias is well documented, I just have one last question for you. If he is found not guilty by a jury, will you accept that decision or continue to crucify him?

By not guilty...do you mean of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter also. I personally suspect the jury may nail him on manslaughter...and it is my understanding that he can be sentenced to as long as 25 or 30 years...and it would not surprise me if this judge gave him the max or close to it.

I believe that if he is found innocent it will set a very dangerous precedent - If someone punches you in the face you will now legally be able to shoot and kill them.

This was a fist fight, not even close to life threatening.

As presented in court, he applied to be a police officer and was turned down.

Zimmerman is clearly overbearing - instead of reporting a suspicious person to the police, instead of following the directions of the 911 operator, he got out of the car and followed him which resulted in Martin feeling threatened.

He is not "mild mannered" - He had a restraining order against him, he assaulted a police officer, and attended court ordered anger management. That is not mild mannered at all.

Martin may have confronted Zimmerman - But Zimmerman forced the confrontation by following the kid and then getting out of his car to follow him more.

Zimmerman followed the kid, there was a confrontation, Martin acted in self defense, Zimmerman shot him even though his life was not in danger.

That is not his defense and no there will not be a precedent set that one can kill someone that punches them.

His defense has nothing to do with being punched or beaten or his injuries. His defense is that Martin saw and then went for his gun and he beat Martin to it.

if GZ refuses to take the stand, just IMO...he is guilty of manslaughter. There is no excuse for him not to testify if he was the good guy & was just defending himself. His defense would be strongest if he testifies. & the state is accusing him of murder! how would he not want to testify? His life is on the line.

credibility is most important as to guilt or innocence when facts are murky & the dead guy cant tell his story. Zims facts are already bad (nonexistent bushes, no recollection of street names in a subdivision he patrols), & it is worse if he refuses to tell the jury directly that he was defending himself.

no excuse not to testify...the truth shall set you free! (or send you to jail :winkwink:)

Thanks for NOT answering lol.

And once again, you have assigned yourself the supreme know all. Pretty arrogant to presume to know for everyone what is and what is not a life threatening experience.

Regarding: "If someone punches you in the face you will now legally be able to shoot and kill them."

How about here?

http://youtu.be/glrh2JrtFOU

His defense is self defense. His injuries were not consistent with what he claims happened, and there is no proof Martin went for his gun.

Legally, this is so "out there" that it shouldn't get a response.

GZ's LAWYERS will determine whether or not he takes the stand. To go against advice of counsel in a legal proceeding is moronic.

That would seem to make common sense. But every defense attorney tells their client NOT to take the witness stand.

It's not as simple as just taking the stand and giving a speech.

You're going to be cross examined by LAWYERS. And those guys are the trickiest SOB's in the world when it comes to twisting words and making you look bad.

I bet GZ himself would love to take the stand. But I'd bet the farm that his lawyers are saying "no".

Remember, they don't give you a chance to put things in context or extrapolate your answer in cross examination. The cross examination is purposefully intended to make you look like a liar. And if you have the defendant on the stand...that's red meat for those prosecuting attorneys.

In any trial, the prosecutors are just praying that the defendant will make the mistake of taking the stand.

i wasnt talking legally. please refer to the IMO in my comment.

also zimmerman is the ultimate decider of his defense. he can get advice from his counsel. but the decision is his whether to testify. & my point was quite simple...sorry you didnt understand it.

I stated what I thought would happen if Zimmerman was found innocent.

It's possible they will drop the charges down to manslaughter, but he'll get a stiff sentence.

I don't think I am the supreme anything. It just seems very obvious to me this was a fist fight that ended up with someone getting shot and killed.

Don't really have enough information on if it was life threatening or not, although it sure does look bad. I also don't know what injuries she got in the process. Looks horrible, but three people tried to break it up and we also don't know when police were called.

The eighteen year old got five years in prison for this. The other attacker is a minor.

Stunning that shit like this goes on.

with all that you said to be true, if the state is accusing YOU of murder, would you refuse the stand out of fear of the prosecutors? your a credible guy. I think any truly innocent & credible man fights for his life on that witness stand.

plus, the defense has the opportunity to retort any cross examination that may harm you on the stand. its not like whatever is damaging in cross exam cannot be clarified by the defense.

:2 cents:

Yes, after watching many lawyer shows on television I have learned that it's best to listen to the professionals. lol

But seriously...yes, I would probably argue with my lawyers about it. And then, because I like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, I'd hear what they think would happen if I did take the stand.

And then, because I don't want to go to jail...I'd listen and heed their advice.

I know that here on GFY we are all experts, but in the real world I'd listen to the real experts (and then later come on GFY and tell you that I disagreed with them lol)

There is testimony..by Zimmerman..in the police reports that Martin went for his gun and that put him in "fear for his life or great bodily harm" which by law gave him the right to use deadly force. That is defense in total.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor not Zimmerman...thus the prosecutor...has to prove that Martin did not go for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman does not have to prove that Martin did.

No you sidestepped by giving the following non-committal answer: " I believe that if he is found innocent it will set a very dangerous precedent - If someone punches you in the face you will now legally be able to shoot and kill them. "



You are talking out of both ends .. you said:

"This was a fist fight, not even close to life threatening."



Oh.. I see... In this case you don't have enough info but in the GZ case you do. Didn't realize you were privy to the court records.


This tells me 100% of what I need to know about your world view. It "looks" horrible? Seriously? She could have retaliated with an Uzi and I would support her.

i would have no problem with Zimmerman patrolling my Neighborhood :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

anyone punching a armed person in the face takes the risk of getting shot.

think of it this way if people know they might get shot and killed for punching someone in the face they might think twice about it. :2 cents::2 cents:

So now we accept everything Zimmerman says as being true?

You know, it's not like he doesn't have a long history of spinning bullshit here.

Now who's trolling. You asked what I thought would happen if he was found innocent, and I told you.

Correct. With the assault in Baltimore I know... Nothing. I don't know know if the victim was seen by a doctor or spent three days in a hospital recovering from wounds. I don't know anything about the victim's injuries.

With Zimmerman, well, we know everything. We have pictures of him front and back, he didn't go to the hospital, he didn't need stiches, he didn't see a doctor. The police detailed his injuries, and multiple people have testified about the extent or lack of injuries Zimmerman had.

That's great. I am not comfortable with having untrained armed civilians running around trying to be police officers. Again, the end result is some innocent kid gets shot and killed.

I certainly do not accept everything Zimmerman says...I stated that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not go for Zimmerman's gun...and Zimmerman does not have to prove that he did.

Of course you know that...you just like to troll...for whatever purpose you have for doing so. I intend to end it.

No. I NEVER asked you what you think would happen.

I asked .. and I quote:

"If he is found not guilty by a jury, will you accept that decision or continue to crucify him?"


This highlights a significant & fundamental difference between you and I. You need to see the extent of someone's injuries to determine if lethal force is warranted.

I see this requirement as quite literally insane. In most states:

"the statutes say you can use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else if you feel your life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger,"

It does not say that you can use deadly force if the injuries from an attack on you or someone else are serious enough to warrant deadly force.

Can you not see how waiting until after an attack to make that determination is insane?

Driving about 800 miles today - again listened to almost the whole day and still listening to the hearings about admitting additional evidence and testimony.. The defense pretty much crushed the prosecution today on every level. Toxicology report will be admitted. 5 or more witnesses identified Zimmerman as the guy crying for help just today alone. Prosecutor strangely can't muster up any family or friends that can do the same - of the 3 so far, being the mother, brother and father, 2 initially said it wasn't Martin.

Horrible that someone died. But it's not appearing to be anywhere close to 2nd degree murder

Beyond

A

Reasonable

Doubt


That is all that matters.