zimmerman news

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doer said:
I would never take you sailing.

Did I say turn the sail boat around? Did I say unload the weapon? Dong.
Click to expand...

Doer, do you know how a double action semi auto operates? If you don't have a round in the chamber, it is not loaded. You squeeze the trigger and nothing happens. You squeeze it again and nothing happens. You can keep this up until the sun turns into a red giant and still nothing will happen.

You are advocating that it is "correct" to carry an unloaded weapon. I don't know where you learned this, but I suggest you rethink it, it is likely to get you killed.
 
desert dude said:
Doer, do you know how a double action semi auto operates? If you don't have a round in the chamber, it is not loaded. You squeeze the trigger and nothing happens. You squeeze it again and nothing happens. You can keep this up until the sun turns into a red giant and still nothing will happen.

You are advocating that it is "correct" to carry an unloaded weapon. I don't know where you learned this, but I suggest you rethink it, it is likely to get you killed.
Click to expand...

we should ask buck, he's one of the few that actually knows what happened that night, obviously while fighting with TM he had time to rack his slide in his child killing rage :mrgreen:
 
I think TM was searching Z s pockets for ANYTHING. Cash or a wallet. Obviously TM could have felt the Gun with his leg and then moved his leg back and reached. Z being on the bottom and know precisely where the gun is, reached for it and handled it first. How TM didnt see he was pulling the weapon, I don't know. I have been in several fights and your senses are hightened. I mean, it just seems strange that you would not be aware of the person you are fighting's right hand. Weird
 
Guilty of manslaughter...said it from the start. Will keep saying it to the end.
Zimmerman has told many inconsistent stories from the beginning. Never heard of a case in which the defendeant pleas self defense but yet will not take the stand to tell the world how it was self defense. If anyone says "Well he already gave five interviews and statements". To them I say all his statement are inconsistent and taking the stand could have clear up any confusing. The only reasonable doubt comes from the statements that Zimmerman has made about self defense.
 
londonfog said:
Guilty of manslaughter...said it from the start. Will keep saying it to the end.
Zimmerman has told many inconsistent stories from the beginning. Never heard of a case in which the defendeant pleas self defense but yet will not take the stand to tell the world how it was self defense. If anyone says "Well he already gave five interviews and statements". To them I say all his statement are inconsistent and taking the stand could have clear up any confusing. The only reasonable doubt comes from the statements that Zimmerman has made about self defense.
Click to expand...

Good luck with your prediction. We will see what the jury says.

I predict a hung jury on MS, and acquittal on murder 2.
 
I think we need to distinguish between the moral case and the legal case. Do I think Z went looking for trouble? Yes. Am I sure enough to vote "convict"? No. I'm tending toward acquittal, even though i don't like what I've learned to be the likely story. But likely isn't "reasonably certain", considering the poor quality of witness testimony, both pertaining to this case and in general. Jmo. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I think we need to distinguish between the moral case and the legal case. Do I think Z went looking for trouble? Yes. Am I sure enough to vote "convict"? No. I'm tending toward acquittal, even though i don't like what I've learned to be the likely story. But likely isn't "reasonably certain", considering the poor quality of witness testimony, both pertaining to this case and in general. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. From a legal perspective there are only two questions to answer:

1. is there reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved its case? If you look past your own biases, there is only one reasonable answer to this question and that is, yes there is reasonable doubt because the prosecution never presented a coherent theory of what went down. They presented the jury with a selection of what might have happened, "Z shot TM when TM leaned away from Z after beating him", "Z shot TM while Z was on top", etc. If you, the juror, find reasonable doubt there is only possible verdict and that is, "not guilty".

2. The second question to answer is, "did Z REASONABLY fear great bodily harm or death" and shoot Trayvon justifiably?" Even if you buy the prosecution's case, do you believe that it was reasonable for Z to fear great bodily harm or death. Again, the only reasonable answer to this is "yes, Z's fear was reasonable".

I still predict a hung jury because about 1/3 of people are unshakably riveted to the "Z did something wrong and has to pay" conclusion.

CN, I don't think Z went looking for trouble. Consider the totality of the circumstances: His neighborhood was besieged by burglars, and home invasion robberies. Z was trying to keep the criminals out of the neighborhood. He did nothing wrong. TM would not have ended up with a hole in his heart if he had not assaulted Z and beaten him. TM made it home, he was in the yard outside his dad's GF's house. TM decided to circle back and confront Z and it cost him his life.
 
desert dude said:
I sort of agree. From a legal perspective there are only two questions to answer:

1. is there reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved its case? If you look past your own biases, there is only one reasonable answer to this question and that is, yes there is reasonable doubt because the prosecution never presented a coherent theory of what went down. They presented the jury with a selection of what might have happened, "Z shot TM when TM leaned away from Z after beating him", "Z shot TM while Z was on top", etc. If you, the juror, find reasonable doubt there is only possible verdict and that is, "not guilty".

2. The second question to answer is, "did Z REASONABLY fear great bodily harm or death" and shoot Trayvon justifiably?" Even if you buy the prosecution's case, do you believe that it was reasonable for Z to fear great bodily harm or death. Again, the only reasonable answer to this is "yes, Z's fear was reasonable".

I still predict a hung jury because about 1/3 of people are unshakably riveted to the "Z did something wrong and has to pay" conclusion.

CN, I don't think Z went looking for trouble. Consider the totality of the circumstances: His neighborhood was besieged by burglars, and home invasion robberies. Z was trying to keep the criminals out of the neighborhood. He did nothing wrong. TM would not have ended up with a hole in his heart if he had not assaulted Z and beaten him. TM made it home, he was in the yard outside his dad's GF's house. TM decided to circle back and confront Z and it cost him his life.
Click to expand...

lol, be sure to leave out all the other relevant stuff. :clap:

some lawyer you are anyway. you'd sue interrogators for asking questions.

after watching the full closing arguments, there's a damn good chance of murder 2 i'd say. they outlined over a dozen zimmerlies. not little innocent ones, either, these were lies that got worse and worse in a pathetic attempt to justify his belligerent actions that night.

and there is just no way that martin even sees the gun, much less gets a direct shot at a 90 degree angle through the heart if he ever did see the gun. there is no way to grab that gun unless martin has gotten off zimmerman or is getting off zimmerman.

go ahead and sit on a mannequin if you have to to prove it to yourself, the jury sure will.

real good chance of zimm going down.
 
The only chance Zimmerman had was to plead self defense or SYG. Can ANYONE name one case in which the defendant did not take the stand when claiming self defense ?? Did the prosecution prove that this was not self defense. Yes they did IMO. You can't claim self defense when you are the one out following,looking and chasing someone who eventually kicks your ass. Zimmerman became his worst enemy with his reenactment and interviews. It showed lies and inconsistencies. If it was self defense why the lies ??? So if it was not self defense what was it ? Manslaughter
 
UncleBuck said:
lol, be sure to leave out all the other relevant stuff. :clap:

some lawyer you are anyway. you'd sue interrogators for asking questions.

after watching the full closing arguments, there's a damn good chance of murder 2 i'd say. they outlined over a dozen zimmerlies. not little innocent ones, either, these were lies that got worse and worse in a pathetic attempt to justify his belligerent actions that night.

and there is just no way that martin even sees the gun, much less gets a direct shot at a 90 degree angle through the heart if he ever did see the gun. there is no way to grab that gun unless martin has gotten off zimmerman or is getting off zimmerman.

go ahead and sit on a mannequin if you have to to prove it to yourself, the jury sure will.

real good chance of zimm going down.
Click to expand...

Whats funny is how some of these people want to say Martin double back to attack..WTF..It appeasr that Martin was closer to where he was staying then he was to Zimmermans car ( in which Zimmerman was suppose to be returning.) You go from a Martin running away... to he came back and punched me in the nose and we ended up 30 feet from where he punched me in the nose and I fell backwards. Only the stupid buy that.
 
londonfog said:
If it was self defense why the lies ???
Click to expand...

all of his time spent studying self defense law kicked in, and he knew he needed to concoct a story that justified his actions.

if his actions were justified, he would have had no need to lie, exaggerate, and change his story so much.

let's just take a look at it one more time to see how zimmerman defended himself, stood his ground in a briskly forward trajectory:

"shit, he ran"

"are you following him?"

"yeah"

clearly self defense. i have to defend myself from people who are running away from me all the time.

"hey, come back here so i can defend myself from you!" :cuss:
 
desert dude said:
I don't want to cater to UB's tastes. But, it is a free country so go ahead and post some.
Click to expand...

translation: desert dud is not secure enough in his sexuality to do so, he fears the gay may rub off on him and before long he will be one step closer to the classic closeted republican.
 
londonfog said:
Whats funny is how some of these people want to say Martin double back to attack..WTF..It appeasr that Martin was closer to where he was staying then he was to Zimmermans car ( in which Zimmerman was suppose to be returning.) You go from a Martin running away... to he came back and punched me in the nose and we ended up 30 feet from where he punched me in the nose and I fell backwards. Only the stupid buy that.
Click to expand...

it was actually a little over 40 feet from where zimm said he was punched and immediately straddled.

all happened in about 40 seconds, too. let's not forget all the blaxploitation type dialogue and the epic, hollywood style battle that occured, with zimmerman laying there like a lump and just taking it the whole time.

then, just when all seems lost, he summons the strength to take wrist control over martin, somehow grab the gun that he is all but lying on and is covered by martin, he moves martin's magical, blood-free hands away, and shoots.

zimmerman walks off into the sunset.

roll credits.

applause.
 
UncleBuck said:
all of his time spent studying self defense law kicked in, and he knew he needed to concoct a story that justified his actions.

if his actions were justified, he would have had no need to lie, exaggerate, and change his story so much.

let's just take a look at it one more time to see how zimmerman defended himself, stood his ground in a briskly forward trajectory:

"shit, he ran"

"are you following him?"

"yeah"

clearly self defense. i have to defend myself from people who are running away from me all the time.

"hey, come back here so i can defend myself from you!" :cuss:
Click to expand...

Dude it is a well known fact that if someone is running away from you, you better defend yourself. only in the world of crazy
 
Thats funny, even the liberal press posted that the jury has to go through conflicting testimony from over 50 witnesses , are all those from Zimmerman?
 
desert dude said:
Doer, do you know how a double action semi auto operates? If you don't have a round in the chamber, it is not loaded. You squeeze the trigger and nothing happens. You squeeze it again and nothing happens. You can keep this up until the sun turns into a red giant and still nothing will happen.

You are advocating that it is "correct" to carry an unloaded weapon. I don't know where you learned this, but I suggest you rethink it, it is likely to get you killed.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a bowel obstruction.....why are you saying I'm advocating? I found out for myself that this weapon has a hammer block safety, etc. I posted the details of why this weapon is carried in battery. I posted the detail that contrary to the current stupidity, you display, fight child, the weapon does, indeed, have a safety.

So, go barf a biscuit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
709
hanimmal
hanimmal
hanimmal
Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
13K
compassionateExotic
compassionateExotic
Roger A. Shrubber
Who's going to run is 2024, and who's going to win?
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
11K
Fogdog
Fogdog
Fogdog
Fascism came to town
5 6 7
Replies
138
Views
10K
Nugnewbie
Nugnewbie
hanimmal
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson SCOTUS hearings.
10 11 12
Replies
237
Views
12K
canndo
canndo
Back
Top