Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

How do you know he went to a hospital and not perhaps just to a medical center or a doctors office?

 

They would be admissible and the doctor would testify to their accuracy and findings.

 

Nope, according to the 911 tape and Martin's state to his girlfriend on the phone he raised his hoody over his face, then Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that Martin has turned and his walking towards him, then he tells the dispatcher Martin is reaching in his waist band for something, so Martin was facing him. Then Martin turned and ran.

 

He did, Martin was engaged in an assault threatening Zimmerman's life or serious bodily harm, that is why Martin is no longer alive.

 

lol....okay....when did he go to a medical center, doctor's office, or broken nose store????? When did he seek medical attention????

 

You have no evidence to support that claim other than Z's revolving and evolving stories.

 

Trayvon never went to Z's vehicle. Period. He put his hoodie on only after he noticed Z was following him.

 

Depends on when he got medical attention. If Z went 6 hours after leaving the police station it would be hard for the defense to prove Trayvon was responsible for injuries not documented by the paramedics, cops, and video footage. Simply having medical records doesn't mean they are automatically admissible and this is why Hal made it a point to claim Z had a fractured or broken nose at the hearing even though he did not show the judge the medical records.

In case people are wondering, one of the main reasons Corey did not put up a fight to keep Z locked up was to avoid Z's lawyer from claiming Z's mental capacity to stand trial was comprised by being in jail.

 

What do you expect from a heartless Edomite? don't be alarmed. I'm not.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MKB91MyYQ

 

You can't put words in her mouth then say her point is moot. Show where she claimed it was against the law or man up and stop using strawman.

 

The investigator NEVER said they have no evidence to support the charge and even straight up said they have evidence Z is a liar. You guys are purposefully twisting what was said out of desperate hope to claim Z is innocent.

 

The SYG allows deadly force to stop the commission of serious crimes and the burglar had three other stereos he had stolen that night so by the law, killing him was legal.

 

Actually I have been very specific about the NW over and over again.

I think you are just bent because you can't deal with Florida's definition of Assault.

Definition of Aggravated Assault

The crime of Aggravated Assault is defined as:

1.An intentional and unlawful threat - by word or act - to commit violence against another person;
2.With the apparent ability to carry through with the threat at the time it was made;
3.And the threat created a genuine fear in the intended victim that the violence was imminent; and
4.The accused made the threat: ◦With a Deadly Weapon, or
◦In the commission of a Felony.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...d-assault.html

 

I had pointed this out when it first happened and Z's defenders said I was an idiot and even after the authors of the law and Bush said it does not apply to Z they still tried to claim it did. It is obvious in a two party fight only one can be acting in self defense. At the bond hearing the prosecutor pointed out Z confronted Trayvon by getting out of his vehicle to chase him, even though at that point they were not physically face to face. False accusing someone of being a criminal while walking, then chasing after them is by law a confrontation.

 

Please do not share that link anymore because it ignores known facts, invents crap and basically just gives Z's supporters more ammo.

 

Okay, when Z is in trial you can pretend this post never existed. When he is convicted you can just claim it was only due to liberal media bias.

 

Can you read?

1.An intentional and unlawful threat - by word or act - to commit violence against another person;

Zimmerman was following Martin because the dispatcher told him

"Let me know if he does anything, OK?"

You cannot commit aggravated assault without criminal intent. Zimmerman was following him to see where he went. That is not assault.

 

You don't need INTENT for murder 2... If Zim put Trayvon in fear for his life or safety, Zim commited the assault.

 

We all know logic is not a stong point of the racist right.

In truth, without knorwing the full set of facts we are all just jumping the gun, so to say. Lets give both sides an opportunity to present the case and the courts decide who's guilty. Last time I checked, that's how the justice system worked.

 

the dishonesty used to defend Z is baffling.

 

#1 We are talking about assault. You are arguing that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon and therefor the felony-murder rule comes into play. Not that I think you are smart enough to actually know what rule you are applying. In common law the felony-murder rule exists precisely because of criminal intent. If you chose to commit a crime then any homicide that happens as a result of that criminal intent choice is also a crime regardless of direct intent. The problem is that Zimmerman had no criminal intent in following Martin. The dispatcher told him to watch Martin.

#2 Yes murder 2 requires criminal intent, you are confusing criminal intent with premeditation because once again you have no clue what you are talking about. If there is no criminal intent it is called manslaughter, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide or an accidental death.

 

Its dishonest to say that assault requires criminal intent???

Sky you have pretty much proven that you will say anything.

 

There is NO premeditation required in Murder 2.. nor intent.. just depraved mind.. That means lack of regard for the life or safety of another human being.

If Zim gave Trayvon cause to be in fear of his life or safety, he assaulted Trayvon.. without ever "touching" him.

That's why the charge is Murder 2.