Zimmerman Bond hearing Results Part II

It's also going to be entered to show how a reasonable person (i.e., the clerk) reacted to Martin.

 

The media on both sides have been biased in this case.

 

Pretty much. But that also has nothing to do with the case.

 

Yeah, in the grand scheme of things, it really does-

 

Depends whether we are going to get jurors who will allow themselves to be influenced by what they've heard in the media or if we get jurors who will keep an open mind and narrow their judgments based only on what is presented at trial (assuming there is even a trial).

 

Sorry. But it doesn't. 90% of the posts about this case have nothing to do with anything.

 

...and 100% of your posts are nonsense....

 

But the bias toward Trayvon has been greater. The old photos and "creative editing" that got people fired at NBC are just a couple of examples.

 

Well Martin is the victim in this case. As for the bias in media, the only difference is when liberal media lies people get fired, when conservative media lies they get promotions.

 

LOL! If that were true the liberal media would be a one person show.

Believing Martin is the victim is part of the problem. People refuse to consider he is responsible for what happened to him because they feel emotionally led to automatically think he was innocent. He wasn't.

 

how are you so sure? unless by not innocent you mean not perfect...in that case who is? but you are assuming that for literally no reason a kid with no history of violence (despite having a history of delinquency and marijuana usage) randomly decided that that night was the night he was going to just go randomly murder someone.

You can't even consider that Zimmerman might be lying through his teeth.

 

The evidence in the case shows Trayvon was committing aggravated battery when he was shot.

 

Are these the same emotionally led people who also refuse to believe Zimmerman is responsible for what happened or a different set of emotionally led people?

I think I may need a score card here.

 

No, the evidence shows he was defending himself from an assault when he was shot.

 

Aggravated battery? Please...battery sure if he was the initiator...but you and I and literally no one knows why he started to swing....We also know due to the level of bloodiness on Zimmerman's face (alleged) and the lack of blood on Trayvon's hands or other marks that any battery was short lived. We also know due to the lack of defensive wounds and or offensive marks on Trayvon's body that Zimmerman made no effort to defend himself aside from shooting Trayvon.

We do not know if he grabbed, halted, or did anything to Trayvon prior to the incident...we do know that he was allegedly scared of Trayvon yet went after him at a quickened pace after Trayvon ran. (did he run? it sounds like it, he sure as hell got out of the car in a hurry).

So now....the 9/11 call ended...and a minute or 2 later there is an altercation that results in Trayvon being killed 20-30 yards from the T where Zimmerman claims he was. Zimmerman never accounted for this distance instead playing a selective amnesiac when details mattered.

You've all decided that running away and hiding is somehow some new thug tactic to attack that's all the rage in 2012...never once considering that Zimmerman is at fault...

let's assume the initial contact is true:

DeeDee's version: "Why are you following me?" "What are you doing here?" **sounds of motion, shoving, etc** "get off me"

Zimmerman's version: "Whats your problem? "I don't have a problem" **Zimmerman starts fumbling around in his pocket** he gets hit.

Now according to Zimmerman's version....he wasn't hit until he was reaching into his pocket for something...imagine being Trayvon in that situation for once...just try.

You had some weirdo following you in his car...you run...you hide...you notice him running somewhere while on the phone...he stops...looks around for you...you decide (*)(*)(*)(*) it, I'm gonna find out his problem...so you ask him...he says something aggressive or downright a lie and then randomly starts fumbling around in his pocket for something...anything...this man who had been tracking you down for near 10 minutes and is now 5 ft in front of you staring you dead in the eye is reaching for something in his pocket...and you have no idea what his problem is...you don't know who he is...and he's convinced already that you are a criminal so he likely isn't looking at you lovingly.

How do you react? Do you wait to see if he wants to give you a flower?

 

You obviously have not looked at the evidence or listened to the independent witnesses who saw and heard vital parts of the struggle.

I don't think GZ was the aggressor but even if, big IF, he was he is still afforded self defense under Florida Law:

So whatever your emotions are telling you the law says something different.

 

After the struggle starts is too late. We need to know who started the fight. Only Dee Dee has that info.

So it will be up to a jury who they find more credible. A 16 year old girl with no criminal record or Zimmerman who engaged in a conspiracy to lie to a court of law and has a history of confrontation & violence.

 

That's where you are wrong. Unless she could see through her phone she has no idea who started it. But that is beside the point do you understand the meaning of the word aggressor?

BTW, Dee's story has holes in it. She is obviously lying. No surprise, she has motive to lie.Has Dee's testimony even been entered into evidence yet?

 

She never states who starts the fight she only testifies to what she heard:

Martin "Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman "What are you doing here?"
*Scuffle begins*
Martin: "Get off! Get off!"
*Phone goes dead*

It's up to the jury what to take from that what they will.

It is interesting to note though that the conversation she heard directly conflicts with what Zimmerman says the conversation was. (Depending which version of Zimmerman's story one believes.)

Zimmerman story has holes in it. He not only has motive to lie, he's already been proven to lie.

I don't know if her testimony has been entered yet. Her identity has been sealed by the court due to her age. We do know that she was deposed by the prosecutors so I would imagine they are going to enter it, if they haven't already.

 

I haven't even mentioned GZ's testimony. I don't think they even need it. Dee's story has holes in it. It doesn't match what obviously happened. No one needs her testimony either. Bringing it will only make the prosecution look silly.

 

Interesting closing argument: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You really didn't need to hear that."

 

Yeah, lol, this isnt getting to a jury!

 

what have the independent witnesses said that contradicts anything I said? what does the evidence show that contradicts anything I said?

 

Nice dodging.