Zimmerman gonna Zimmerman

[panamaican]

There wasn't enough to convict Zimmerman on that...you really need to let this go.

You claim to be a lawyer. You should know that there wasn't enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict Zimmerman on the charges of murder of Trayvon Martin.

I don't claim to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer, lol.

And so I understand that when someone is too dead to testify on their own behalf, it makes it much easier for the alive person to present their version of events sans contradiction (it happens in more than just criminal trials). So, when the alive person testifies about what the dead person did or didn't do, I don't just accept that version of the facts.

I know this is hard to believe but sometimes people lie. As a lawyer, I've even had my own clients lie to me about events and the lie only gets exposed when the other side's witness testifies in contradiction (it's why I fact check my clients as aggressively as I fact check the opposition). Now, if the other side's witness never shows up, my client's lie would go uncontested but that doesn't make it the truth.

The thing about GZ that I won't let go is that his pre-TM and post-TM behaviors contradict the image of an individual who is primarily non-violent and they contradict the image of an individual who is completely truthful. I always said he wouldn't get convicted but that doesn't mean I believe his version of events. I'm a lawyer, I've been in too many courtrooms to confuse uncontested testimony with actual truth. And it's very hard for dead people to contest testimony.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I don't claim to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer, lol.

And so I understand that when someone is too dead to testify on their own behalf, it makes it much easier for the alive person to present their version of events sans contradiction (it happens in more than just criminal trials). So, when the alive person testifies about what the dead person did or didn't do, I don't just accept that version of the facts.

I know this is hard to believe but sometimes people lie. As a lawyer, I've even had my own clients lie to me about events and the lie only gets exposed when the other side's witness testifies in contradiction (it's why I fact check my clients as aggressively as I fact check the opposition). Now, if the other side's witness never shows up, my client's lie would go uncontested but that doesn't make it the truth.

The thing about GZ that I won't let go is that his pre-TM and post-TM behaviors contradict the image of an individual who is primarily non-violent and they contradict the image of an individual who is completely truthful. I always said he wouldn't get convicted but that doesn't mean I believe his version of events. I'm a lawyer, I've been in too many courtrooms to confuse uncontested testimony with actual truth. And it's very hard for dead people to contest testimony.

Actually, with all the mounting legal infractions and brushes with the law, I wonder if I was wrong about ZimZam as well...

I might have to concede to Nicky on this one.

 

[panamaican]

Actually, with all the mounting legal infractions and brushes with the law, I wonder if I was wrong about ZimZam as well...

I might have to concede to Nicky on this one.

fair enough.

 

[44nutman]

Nope. I am all for someone's right to defend themselves, even the occasional bit of vigilantism. But GZ should probably be kicked into a 300 pit.

I am all for someone's right to defend themselves as well, but I am not sure that if it was ZimZAm or TM that were the ones defending themselves. The more shit ZimZam gets into, the murkier the events of that night become.

I just find it funny the same dudes I know on Facebook that defend ZimZAm are the same ones posting videos of Browns past. I guess I am the only one who sees the irony.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Ah yes, the violent past of a high school kid getting into fights with other kids. Completely comparable to a grown man assaulting law enforcement or an adult male attacking women.

High school kids fighting = a violent past.
Assaulting police and women = just your average misunderstood citizen.

If the topic was about making lifelong character assessments about the individuals involved then of course the actions of an adult should be judged more harshly than that of a teenager.

That's not the topic though. The topic is whether or not the previous actions of the individuals involved is consistent with those of being a person likely to initiate violence.

Within a year previous of his shooting, Trayvon had picked a fight at school because the person had "snitched" on him. He also intended to fight him again. He was in numerous other fights besides this. This isn't even taking into account drugs, possible theft, guns, etc. Is this consistent with the behavior of a person who would initiate violence? Yes.

 

[HugeMember]

I don't claim to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer, lol.

I always said he wouldn't get convicted but that doesn't mean I believe his version of events. I'm a lawyer, I've been in too many courtrooms to confuse uncontested testimony with actual truth. And it's very hard for dead people to contest testimony.

I'm not a lawyer and I know the difference between "not guilty" and innocence. As in the OJ case, I'm not surprised when these people get into more trouble. It seems to be in their nature.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Two incidents in 2005
Then nothing until 2012 (Trayvon Martin)
And now something comes up every other month

he assaulted a cop, he had a dv charge, he got fired from a job for assaulting a female, he was accused of molestation.

compare that to martin's record of......... nothing.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

There were text messages from Trayvon regarding a fist fight he was in where he commented his opponent did not bleed enough.

There was also a few other instances of violence in his past.

I do not consider it unlikely that Trayvon initiated the violence that lead to his eventually death.

martin had zero charges, never been charged with a crime, if he fought after school, big deal, so did i.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Zimmerman seems like a POS individual.

Probably the only worthwhile thing he will ever do in his life was getting that thug, Trayvon, off the streets.

lol, troll alert.

reported for trayvon bashing!

 

[klnOmega]

Why does either Zimmerman or Trayvon have to be an angel?

Can't we all admit they are both unstable, violent, scumbags? The only question is who started the violence the night Trayvon got killed. It turns out there wasn't much evidence either way.

 

[TrainInVain]

Zimmerman is the conservatives version of Michael Brown. A total tool, but due to circumstances they were put forth to push an agenda.
Make sure when you stick up for someone, try to find out if they are a total asshole first. When you find out they are an asshole, it is alright to admit your wrong and move on. The problem is both sides backed themselves in a corner, sticking up for these scumbags, so they look like shills still defending them.
Brown is a thug.
ZimZam is a bully with no ground game.

Interesting point. I know a few conservatives who only took interest in the case once it was found msnbc(?) doctored the 911 call. They always listen to Fox being criticized, and rightly so, but it really put them behind Zimmerman.
I didn't pay any attention until about 3/4 of the way through the trial and the prosecution suddenly threw just about every charge they could at him, I didn't know at the time this was not uncommon, but it just looked like a complete act of desperation on their part to me. I was always under the impression that you were to be charged with a particular crime and that charge would remain unless it was plea bargained down. Anyway poorly handled case by the prosecution. I think they could have gotten manslaughter if they started with, and stuck with it.
Also think both Zimmerman and Martin were both idiots who easily could have avoided a confrontation, but they both chose to go down that path.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

he assaulted a cop, he had a dv charge, he got fired from a job for assaulting a female, he was accused of molestation.

compare that to martin's record of......... nothing.

So external behavior of Zimmerman (prior and post), not related to the actual incident between Zimmerman and Martin, is relevant to how he handled himself with Martin.


Do you feel the same about Brown? Is Brown's external behavior (prior and post the actual incident with Darrin Wilson) relevant to how he handled himself with Wilson?

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Couple of points that physical evidence and witness testimony disagree with you on. Martin had injuries to his knuckles. Zimmerman had his bloody nose and scrapes on back of head. And Martin was seen on top of, and hitting Zimmerman. Thats why its not a stretch to see him as the aggressor.

I think Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter as I think in this case it was likely two dumb asses were equally guilty of turning a misunderstanding into an unfortunately deadly confrontation. I also really wonder if "miss grass sounds" didn't egg Martin into the fight since he got close to or near his father's home while talking to her but the confrontation was quite a ways from it. Something in her post trial comments about Zimmerman not understanding in the black community there is an ass whoopin', and he didn't understand thats all it was.

equally? how is it equal when martin ran away? that makes no sense, zimmerman stalked him, refused to listen to dispatch, and continued stalking him after he was told not to. how is that equal? everything martin did shows you he was scared, everything zimmerman did shows you he was the aggressor.

and the fight was going on for a while, according to the medical examiner, zimmerman was punched in the face a grand total of 1 time. if martin wanted to light him up, he would have, he didn't, he was wrestling him, not beating his ass.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

So external behavior of Zimmerman (prior and post), not related to the actual incident between Zimmerman and Martin, is relevant to how he handled himself with Martin.


Do you feel the same about Brown? Is Brown's external behavior (prior and post the actual incident with Darrin Wilson) relevant to how he handled himself with Wilson?

yes, i think brown was a scum bag bully.

and yes, when i look at zims history he's a bully, when i look at his actions and martins actions that night, i have to say it must have been the zim that did the sin.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

yes, i think brown was a scum bag bully.

and yes, when i look at zims history he's a bully, when i look at his actions and martins actions that night, i have to say it must have been the zim that did the sin.

Can't argue with that at all.
You're consistent.... that's reasonable.

 

[TrainInVain]

I don't claim to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer, lol.

And so I understand that when someone is too dead to testify on their own behalf, it makes it much easier for the alive person to present their version of events sans contradiction (it happens in more than just criminal trials). So, when the alive person testifies about what the dead person did or didn't do, I don't just accept that version of the facts.

I know this is hard to believe but sometimes people lie. As a lawyer, I've even had my own clients lie to me about events and the lie only gets exposed when the other side's witness testifies in contradiction (it's why I fact check my clients as aggressively as I fact check the opposition). Now, if the other side's witness never shows up, my client's lie would go uncontested but that doesn't make it the truth.

The thing about GZ that I won't let go is that his pre-TM and post-TM behaviors contradict the image of an individual who is primarily non-violent and they contradict the image of an individual who is completely truthful. I always said he wouldn't get convicted but that doesn't mean I believe his version of events. I'm a lawyer, I've been in too many courtrooms to confuse uncontested testimony with actual truth. And it's very hard for dead people to contest testimony.

It also doesn't help your case when your star witness says she heard, "grass sounds."

What was your opinion of the lawyers on both sides. Seemed to me O'Mara just chewed up and spit out the prosecuting attorneys.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

I really don't care about his judicial problems. I think his actions were justified, but you'd think with his time in jail before making bail and the trial that threatened his freedom for the rest of his life.... he'd be careful about doing stupid shit to get him thrown in jail... where there'd be a big target on his head for anyone who would take him out.

so what you are saying is, he's completely unstable with a long history of being a violent thug, BUT he was justified in killing an unarmed minor who had run away from him?

you seem as rational and intelligent as the zim zam.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Both individuals have violence in their past. Excluding the Zimmerman worshipers, most of his "supporters" merely hold the rational belief that there is not even close to enough evidence for a beyond reasonable doubt conviction.

The extend of Zimmerman's violent past is resisting an officer while drunk and a restraining order that alleged domestic violence. Nothing that suggests he was capable of jumping out of his car and assaulting a 6'2 hooded stranger.

Meanwhile Martin was in numerous fights and even commented that his opponent "didn't bleed enough".

there is no proof martin had several fights, just comments, and further, did you fight when you were a teen after school? i think you might be a bit of a wuss, because i know i fought a lot. boxing was HUGE where i grew up, so we all boxed, even just with friends for fun. it was just something teens did.

as for zim zam, he had a dv charge, assaulting a cop charge, and was fired from a job for assaulting a woman, that's 2 violent charges. guess how many martin had? 0.

so an unarmed teen, who ran away and was just trying to talk to a girl on the phone was the violent aggressor, and the armed with a loaded fire arm adult who was pissed off and stalking the unarmed teen, even though 911 dispatch told him NOT TOO, was not the aggressor? the guy who was so angry he ignored 911? was not the aggressor? and the unarmed teen who ran away was?

i think martin was guilty because he was black is what you are trying to say brah.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

There wasn't enough to convict Zimmerman on that...you really need to let this go.

You claim to be a lawyer. You should know that there wasn't enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict Zimmerman on the charges of murder of Trayvon Martin.

people have been convicted on a FRACTION of that evidence. there was less evidence in the scott peterson case, but his victim wasn't black.

 

[method115]

equally? how is it equal when martin ran away? that makes no sense, zimmerman stalked him, refused to listen to dispatch, and continued stalking him after he was told not to. how is that equal? everything martin did shows you he was scared, everything zimmerman did shows you he was the aggressor.

This is my issue with it. How can you follow someone call the police be told to stop following that person kill the person after getting into a fight with them and then claim self defense. That makes no sense to me.