Are you mentally retarded? Serious question.

You keep trying to get us to think that you have suddenly started watching the trial, yet come up with the most inane commentary. I doubt anyone believes you are actually "listening" to anything being said. :2 cents:

Luckily for the entire country, what Rochard "thinks is the evidence" does not apply . . . ever.

The problem being that you apparently have no idea the definition of murder.

As evidence to my statement above. That is not the definition of murder in any society I am aware of.

I have to presume you are not a citizen of the US or you should seriously consider suing your local school system for allowing you to graduate . . . presuming you did.

The state has to prove he committed second degree murder.

Damn.. haha.

I have to presume the same about you. Again, go kill someone, admit you did it and tell the state 'you must prove why I did it'. Go get some sleep old man.

Sweet Jesus, are you fucking kidding me? :helpme

But that scenario you just stated ("go kill someone") doesn't take into account what actually happened. Zimmerman didn't just go out and kill someone. He was the neighborhood watch in a community that has been having several home robberies. He saw a man with a hoodie up in people's yards at night in that neighborhood. He called the police. He got out and followed on foot and got his ass beaten and then shot the guy in what he described as self-defense.

But you knew all that already right? You knew the cops didn't arrest him right? You knew the state didn't even press any charges right? You knew that they only pressed charges AFTER the media started airing black leaders calling for Zimmerman to be arrested and did so out of fear of riots. Right?

And because you already knew all that...you're just picking on baddog. :1orglaugh

Some really entertaining topics today. And I am only following two.

You wanna know how I know you're mentally retarded?

You don't have a very firm grasp of the legal system, do you?

He might be from Northern Pakistan.

I believe that the aforementioned black leaders are more concerned about the situation in Chicago than they are about the verdict in the Trayvon Martin murder trial. I know that I am.

Aside from the media that is willing to serve up whatever gets ratings and pays for ads, it seems that Zimmerman's defenders are the ones mostly in a frenzy these days.

Anyone interested in learning more about the problems in Chicago and elsewhere can get informed/involved:









What are your suggestions for helping to end the gun violence in Chicago and around the US?

:stoned

ADG

Why does it have to be GUN violence instead of ALL violence?

Yes Just Alex, I do. Do you?

Take away all the legal guns, obviously... Oh, wait, doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, along with New York? How's that working out I wonder.

Yeah, I was as surprised as the next person that they didn't offer up any description of the real shooter, you would have thought that the defense attorneys would have told the court whom they suspected the real shooter was.

I'm guessing we will never find out and this will go the way of the JFK shooting...

Idiot :1orglaugh

If this thread is a recipe for chicken chow mein, I think I've done something wrong :Oh crap

I'm not Just Alex.

And to answer your question...no, not really. But I'm F. Lee Bailey compared to you.

More of a grasp than by how many degrees fahrenheit goes up by if there is a 2 - 4C rise I hope :winkwink:

Yes...I have a suggestion...turn the cops loose on the gangs...much as Chief Darly Gates did at one point in time in L.A.and just as has been done in New York City at one point in time.

I was going to mention affirmative defense days ago but I knew most of the tards on here would react just like they have. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This still requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of their case.

As I understand it, an Affirmative Defense as part of a Self Defense defense requires the defendant to concede the states claims against him. There is no reason to do this when its a slam dunk win for the defense... its a tool of last resort or used in the case of insanity or other oddball defenses that concede the defendant committed the crime. For example, a psychotic axe murder cuts up a bunch of children and is caught in the act and doesn't deny any of the facts.... concedes he did it and pleads insanity. The defense in this case is not conceding the defendant committed 2nd degree murder. The state in this case seems to be miles away from proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

All that said, the burden of proof is never on the defendant, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution as the presumption of the innocence of the defendant exists... proving your innocence assumes guilt.

Honestly? I could give two fucks. lol

I know that sounds cold. But since I was a kid in the 1960's and 1970's I've been hearing about this shit.

Gangs are gonna kill each other. Ain't nothing that you or me can do about it. The only ones who could are those noble black leaders.

A couple of middle aged white pornographers? Yeah, I suppose we could go to Chicago together and try to hold hands with the black youth and sing songs of peace...but they'd kill our dumb asses in the first five minutes. :1orglaugh

zimmerman declined to testify. this is the smoking gun. he committed manslaughter.

spare me your armchair bullshit about the process, the burden of proof. im just talking about the truth. Fact is, zim should not have chased down trayvon. should not have put himself into a spot where he got his ass beat.

credibility is the most important part of this case. Zim has none. i know the prosecution is weak. that was inevitable given the witnesses contradict each other & there is no video tape. so when the only person who can say what happened refuses to testify, that says everything as to credibility.

Im hoping for a manslaughter conviction. Zim does not deserve to be a free man for his actions. an innocent kid was killed because he was playing wannabe cop.

:)

Why exactly would he need to testify? There's nothing he can say or add that hasn't been picked apart from video interviews/statements already...

He wanted to be a cop years ago...but the cop that trained him for the neighborhood watch...offered him a job on the Citizens on Patrol program which would have provided him with a cops uniform and a cops patrol car...but he turned it down flat. In addition his college professor said that Zimmerman wanted to become an attorney. So much for the over used "wanna be cop".

Ugh. If the FIRST punch can be fatal, can the SECOND? I only ask that because contrary to the experts, YOU know he wasn't hurt at all. So at what point does it BECOME self-defense? When you're too incapacitated to respond? That could be the SECOND punch and then YOU'RE the dead one.

I don't know of a single person who would NOT feel threatened if someone punched them and then climbed on top of them. He wasn't on top of him to make sure he was ok. He was on top of him to cause further harm. And as YOU said, the VERY NEXT punch could have killed him. You're not going to take your chances that the cops are only a couple of minutes away, and how do you know the guy himself doesn't have a gun or a knife??

You're in a vulnerable position in a confrontation with someone that has already demonstrated their willingness to do you harm. That is the reason it's CLEARLY self-defense. It's a no-brainer.

1. Defendants should try to never take the stand. I watched Mark Geragos explain today on CNN how the prosecution had botched the trial and the video of Zimmerman explaining to police at the scene took away ANY reason for him to have to get on the stand and go through a cross examination.
Also...thank God that what you are saying is not how our justice system works. Can you imagine if you were instantly guilty and it was a "smoking gun" if you didn't take the stand? Holy shit man. I'm glad it's not that way.

2. Yeah, because REAL cops never shoot unarmed citizens. lol
No, real cops would have killed Trayvon BEFORE he ever got one punch on them and would have said it was self defense. The fucking cops do it every day. That's why they didn't even arrest GZ in the first place or bring up any charges until the media started the race issue (GZ is referred to as a "self described hispanic" by some media stories lol)

i was not talking about process. i was just talking bout my impression as to his guilt or innocence. to me his credibility is all that matters, as it is clear the facts are in dispute. my post is just my opinion. I think he committed a crime by the way zim has conducted himself AFTER the shooting, all the way up to declining to testify. that is guilty to me.

Did he "decline" to testify???

How do you know he didn't want to testify? He certainly talked to the cops (remember, he was the one who called them in the first place). And he went back and explained the entire sequence of events with the cops on VIDEO right after it happened with no attorney present.

He didn't even have an attorney until the media stirred up race (they probably thought he was white and didn't realize he was Hispanic at the time).

My guess is that the defense attorneys saw no reason to put him on the stand. Why do that and let the prosecution try to make him look bad?

The goal is to WIN the trial. Not lose it by doing something dumb.

And putting GZ on the stand (or ANY defendant) is dumb because it allows the prosecutor to pick you apart. And trust me...a good lawyer WILL pick you apart even if you are innocent as a baby.

Didn't anybody here ever watch Matlock or Perry Mason on T.V.? :1orglaugh

i was not speaking of the process. only that his credibility blows, & i think he committed a crime. I dont know that he will be acquitted or convicted. & its Zims right not to testify. i simply think he committed a manslaughter. this should never have happened.

a guy who got an A in law enforcement class should have known better how to handle the situation without needing to shoot someone. just IMO.

there was a guy in NY years back that got shot 41 times by cops. the cops were cleared. it caused a huge ruckus here in NY. Just because they were free, doesnt make it right. Just IMO.

No, not at all. Zimmerman didn't testify because the risk was too great. He could get up on the stand, and they can ask him a question, and if it doesn't match up exactly to what he said earlier on some police report months ago... He'll be ripped to shreds.

In a murder case the defendant should never testify.

Said no cop, ever.

Please name one murderer that was caught that did not have a trial where the state had to prove his guilt. Just one. Even dead guys get trials.

Because he is anti-gun.

Another armchair quarterback that has not even listened to the testimony. Testimony, shlamony.

I can see him being convicted of discharging a weapon causing the death of another.

Any punch can be life threatening. But that doesn't mean you can shoot people in self defense because you were in fear of someone punching you.

With Zimmerman he was barely hurt, and he obviously wasn't incapacitated - he was aware of what was happening enough to pull out a handgun during a struggle AND shoot him dead.

Zimmerman didn't even get a single stitch. He didn't even see a doctor. There was no reason to believe this was life threatening or that his life was in danger.

yes. the judge asked zimmerman directly if he wished to testify, & confirmed it was his decision not to & his alone. He declined. it was broadcast on live TV today.

a prosecutor cannot pick you apart if you are innocent. the defense can rebut any damaging testimony. credibility. thats all im talking about.

if Zim ends up convicted, i guarantee it was because he lacked credibility. so if he was innocent, he could do 10+ years because he didnt take the stand.

:2 cents:

So by your logic, he should have waited until he was unconscious or worse before shooting Martin...

Ignorant ass troll, do you ever think before you speak?

I do not know why I am responding to your post yet again. You have been repeatedly told that the extent of his injuries...or lack there of have nothing to do with...his claim of self defense.

His one and only claim to self defense was that Martin went for his gun and verbally threatened his life at the same time...he beat Martin to the gun. That his is only claim to self defense...period.

He did not claim self defense because of a fight...no matter who may have started it. He did not claim self defense because he was losing a fight. He did not claim self defense because of any injuries.

According to Zimmerman Martin went for his gun is his only claim to self defense.

Answer these questions...

-at what point does it BECOME self-defense?
-how do you know the guy himself doesn't have a gun or a knife??

and remember that you paraphrased this..."the VERY NEXT punch could have killed him."