Why did AC 'tamper' with the Zimmerman trial evidence?

Once he was aware that this person who had no right to confront him was armed, it would have been reasonable for Martin to assume that he had to get that gun away from the slob. You are not obligated to let an armed man go if he has not ceased hostility or identified himself as law enforcement. It is suicidal. You have no right to possess a gun while engaged in hostilities with a person whom you do not know has committed a felony.

 

trayvon gave up any right to self defense when he returned to confront george.

 

hearsay, only Martin can know when he saw the gun...
.

- - - Updated - - -

Did Zimmerman give up any right to self defense when he exited the car to confront Martin?

Martin doesn't need a defense, he is dead, if zimmerman was dead and martin was alive then the reverse would be true

would be nice to see Zimmerman take the stand and show us a reenactment of how he says it went down that night

.

 

That isn't how the hearsay rule works.

First there needs to be proof George confronted Martin.

There is enough witness testimony and evidence that shows how it happened and how George is innocent. Have you been watching the trial?

 

you can't say what you 'think' someone else was thinking, only what you think they were thinking (hearsay)

.

 

I have, and I am positive Zimmerman killed Martin, I am not sure of self defense as a excuse to use excessive force, have not seen anything to make me believe that yet

by your logic a man could kill his wife and sense she is dead, claim she attacked him and he shot her dead in self defense, he better have proof that his only choice was to kill her

.

 

whatever, the defense has already said that in court and the state didn't object. maybe you should call them.

- - - Updated - - -

so innocent until proven guilty is lost on you? ok then.

it depends on the situation.

 

when a husband kills his wife, if there is no doubt he killed his wife cause he confessed, then he needs to prove it was self defense

kinda like in the Andrea Yates case, the state proved she was guilty, but she used the insanity defense and had to prove her case

do you think Andrea could of just said prove I am sane or let me go without proving she was insane?

.

 

he only needs to present enough evidence to get jury instruction for self defense. that can be only his account of what happened. then the burden is on the prosecution to disprove his account as well as prove the elements of the charges they bring. that is how it works.

 

your right, but if the jury doesn't buy it, then they do not find him not guilty

.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no clue what Z could do about reaching for his gun, he had every right to pull it AND FIRE IT, And Martin had no right to even touch Zimmerman's gun.
Strike 1. Strike 2. Strike 3.

 

but the state has the burden of disproving his account. so far they haven't.

 

FALSE! Irrelevant.

By you turning it.

I don't have to deal with a darn thing, and certainly not any of your silly stretches mentioned here. Only ones who have to deal with all this is the prosecution who are in quicksand right now, up to their eyeballs with an objective, eyewitness neighbor who laid out the fight with Trayvon having attacked Zimmerman, and a cop who confirmed it, with his testimony of Zimmerman's back all wet with grass stains, and the grass and dirt stains on Trayvon's pants (knees). The injuries aren't even necessary to be mentioned, but they just add more to an already obvious conclusion. Right now, the prosecution would rather be marooned on a deserted island infested with fleas and mosquitos, than where they are.

 

1. He had every right AND DUTY to confront Martin.

2. It would NOT have been reasonable for Martin to assume that he had to get that gun away - what an absurd notion.

3. You said >> "You are not obligated to let an armed man go if he has not ceased hostility or identified himself as law enforcement." This sentence does not even begin to make any sense. It is so weird and screwed up, I can't even comment on it except to say Pheeeeeeeww! (high-pitched whistle)

4. You HAVE EVERY RIGHT possess AND CARRY a gun, as long as you have a concealed weapon license, no matter who you're talking to, or in whatever manner.

5. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Your statement just demonstrates that you have NO IDEA of what evidence have been released!
Go to the Stanford police report of February 26 and February 27, and you will clearly see the charges that the investigator had recommended. . .but they were overturned by the State prosecutor who later had to leave his post.

I will actually look again to that document and post the exact words AND the official number of the charge that was suggested by Serino on that very first night.

Because this document is in PDF, I am unable to copy and paste.

However, you can look for yourself. . .or you can believe this quotation:

And. . .since that night, it has become CLEAR that there were NO UNLAWFUL ACT in progress!

 

why check gps for jis whereabouts..he was where his body has found..shot dead

 

You are just about as correct with this assessment as you were about your refusal to recognize that the FIRST investigator report recommended Zimmerman be charged with MANSLAUGHTER with unnecessary use of deadly force (782.11)

 

I'm very sorry! But, your comments make me believe that you might be the security guard from hell!

I am SO glad none of the security guards who protect my gated community have that kind of predatory goal!

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. . .they have ONLY laid the ground work. . .and began to demonstrate the silliness and bad will of the defense!

Where is the hurry? We haven't even begun to hear gun forensic evidence yet!

 

"Advanced systems determine the sector in which the mobile phone resides and roughly estimate also the distance to the base station. Further approximation can be done by interpolating signals between adjacent antenna towers. Qualified services may achieve a precision of down to 50 meters[citation needed] in urban areas where mobile traffic and density of antenna towers (base stations) is sufficiently high. Rural and desolate areas may see miles between base stations and therefore determine locations less precisely."

The "evidence" if it exists is not sufficient to provide the accuracy to determine specifically where Martin was at any given moment.

 

This post is all jumble up and unclear, but the last sentence is correct IF it's referring to George Zimmerman. It's not if it's referring to Trayvon Martin.

 

Yeah ? So if you think you have any evidence to refute it ("this assessment"), let's hear it (and the prosecution would sure like to know about it too, because right now, they've got nothing).

 

"predatory goal" ??? Quick head shake. What on earth are you talking about ?