The Zimmerman Trial

dannno said:
Where is the proof that this is what happened?

That isn't how our legal system works, you can't just make up a story and say that somebody is guilty.

First of all, just because 911 told Zimmerman not to follow skittleboy doesn't mean he was not in his right to follow skittleboy. Skittleboy could have very easily felt threatened by the presence of Zimmerman and attacked Zimmerman!! In fact, witnesses said that skittleboy was on TOP of Zimmerman, punching him in the head when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.

All of that evidence leads to a good argument for self defense. Now, it's very possible that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy, but there really isn't any evidence of that, is there? You actually have to PROVE that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy in this country in order to find him guilty, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Skittleboy?

Here's the facts: Wannabe-Rent-a-pig stares down Trayvon Martin. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig chases after a man he had no business in accosting. Trayvon Martin rightfully defended himself from a man who was chasing him down. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig can't fight, so wannabe-Rent-a-pig gets knocked to the ground. Trayvon Martin beat wannabe-Rent-a-pig who probably did fear for his life. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig shot Trayvon Martin.

The fact remains the same that had wannabe-Rent-a-pig not been a wannabe-Rent-a-pig and chased down a teenager minding his own business, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Wannabe-Rent-a-pig is largely to blame and should be held accountable for his actions. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig should do some time. Now what wannabe-Rent-a-pig should be convicted on I can't say. Second degree murder seems somewhat appropriate. After all, it was wannabe-Rent-a-pig's actions that led to the confrontation, Wannabe-Rent-a-pig wouldn't have been beat to death, and you know what? He probably deserved being fended off. Someone chases me up the road it is only going to be so far until I turn around to defend myself.

Here's what the dispatcher should have said, or wannabe-Rent-a-pig's parents should have taught him at some point in his life. "Mind your own goddamn business you nosy fuck." Might have him from some years and the teenager would still be alive.

Whatever happens... meh. He killed the kid. You can't argue self-defense when you accost someone, instigate a fight, and end up getting your ass rightfully whooped. It's not the end of the world to have a few lumps or even the lacerations that he had. He should have taken it as a lesson and moved on. But he was a wannabe-Rent-a-pig, he was ascared. You don't want to scare wannabe-Rent-a-pig, rent-a-pigs, or pigs, that's how people get mistakenly shot, or just shot in general.
 
RickyJ said:
They are stupid. That was a good joke. They didn't laugh or smile because they felt bad about lying to get on the jury.
Click to expand...
You don't joke at a murder trial. That is such a fundamentally understood concept, I doubt they spend more than 10 seconds or so covering the subject at Law School. :rolleyes:

If that was my lawyer, I'd be rightfully pissed. If I ended up getting convicted I'd be rightfully pissed. Now he hired him so I don't know how far it would be for grounds for an appeal but seriously, the joke wasn't even funny, (when the opening to the joke is four times longer than the joke, let's just say you aren't a comedian) and even if it were your client is facing 20 some years. Tf are you telling jokes for in a situation as grave as that?
 
dannno said:
If somebody was following me around I would either head straight home or confront them by casually saying 'hi' and starting up a conversation. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have acted like a total dick, but after skittleboy explained he was visiting his aunt and gave him the address of where she lived he would have backed off.. but instead, according to Zimmerman, he just straight up attacked him.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Who the fuck is wannabe-rent-a-pig that he ought to be answered to?
 
I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work. He was putting the jury on notice. It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
You don't joke at a murder trial. That is such a fundamentally understood concept, I doubt they spend more than 10 seconds or so covering the subject at Law School. :rolleyes:

If that was my lawyer, I'd be rightfully pissed. If I ended up getting convicted I'd be rightfully pissed. Now he hired him so I don't know how far it would be for grounds for an appeal but seriously, the joke wasn't even funny, (when the opening to the joke is four times longer than the joke, let's just say you aren't a comedian) and even if it were your client is facing 20 some years. Tf are you telling jokes for in a situation as grave as that?
Click to expand...

I heard plenty of people laughing in the court room, apparently none of them were jurors though. He was getting a reading on the jury he was dealing with here. It is better to know that at the start of the trial than midway through or near the end. Now he knows the right path to take for his defense of Zimmerman. He knows many on this jury probably were not telling the truth when they said they never heard of George Zimmerman before. That is very important info for a defense attorney to know about.
 
Last edited:
ClydeCoulter said:
I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work. He was putting the jury on notice. It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.
Click to expand...

Right, he was making many of them feel bad for lying to get on the jury. Who the heck hadn't heard of George Zimmerman in Florida last year? Cave dwellers?
 
ClydeCoulter said:
I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work. He was putting the jury on notice. It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.
Click to expand...
Well, you never know. Maybe it did awaken the jury to the fact that this has been a media spectacle since day one.

I wouldn't be betting my freedom on it, that's for sure though. Thinking about it, I'm sure he probably talked it over with Zimmerman. If my freedom was in limbo for a day, though, I'd be upset at my representation. If I was facing the sort of time he is it would be hard not to get upset. It isn't My Cousin Vinny. There are serious consequences the man faces. I'd prefer my lawyer understand the seriousness of those consequences.

Everyone deserves adequate representation. I find it kind of kangarooish.
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
Skittleboy?

Here's the facts: Wannabe-Rent-a-pig stares down Trayvon Martin. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig chases after a man he had no business in accosting. Trayvon Martin rightfully defended himself from a man who was chasing him down. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig can't fight, so wannabe-Rent-a-pig gets knocked to the ground. Trayvon Martin beat wannabe-Rent-a-pig who probably did fear for his life. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig shot Trayvon Martin.

The fact remains the same that had wannabe-Rent-a-pig not been a wannabe-Rent-a-pig and chased down a teenager minding his own business, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Wannabe-Rent-a-pig is largely to blame and should be held accountable for his actions. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig should do some time. Now what wannabe-Rent-a-pig should be convicted on I can't say. Second degree murder seems somewhat appropriate. After all, it was wannabe-Rent-a-pig's actions that led to the confrontation, Wannabe-Rent-a-pig wouldn't have been beat to death, and you know what? He probably deserved being fended off. Someone chases me up the road it is only going to be so far until I turn around to defend myself.

Here's what the dispatcher should have said, or wannabe-Rent-a-pig's parents should have taught him at some point in his life. "Mind your own goddamn business you nosy fuck." Might have him from some years and the teenager would still be alive.

Whatever happens... meh. He killed the kid. You can't argue self-defense when you accost someone, instigate a fight, and end up getting your ass rightfully whooped. It's not the end of the world to have a few lumps or even the lacerations that he had. He should have taken it as a lesson and moved on. But he was a wannabe-Rent-a-pig, he was ascared. You don't want to scare wannabe-Rent-a-pig, rent-a-pigs, or pigs, that's how people get mistakenly shot, or just shot in general.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things in here that aren't facts. We don't know if Zimmerman chased him, he could have merely followed him, which he has every right to do, and then as Dr. 3D said he may have even turned around to head back and skittleboy just comes up behind him and attacks him. In that case, Zimmerman didn't cause anything. Then there is the grey area of in between where some sort of verbal confrontation occurred, and then one of them attacked the other. We have no idea what went down, but you have to PROVE that Zimmerman wasn't attacked, otherwise there is reasonable doubt because he could have been attacked based on the evidence.

kcchiefs6465 said:
Wow.

Who the fuck is wannabe-rent-a-pig that he ought to be answered to?
Click to expand...

That's where option 1 comes in - go straight home. What if skittleboy didn't go straight home? What if he turned around and went after Zimmerman who was following him?

I'm just saying what I would do personally, if I were in a strange neighborhood that is gated and some guy was concerned that I was there I might start a conversation like a normal human being, maybe tell them who I'm staying with. If it's not a gated community then I'd feel more inclined to ignore the person, but if it's a gated community then they probably know the person I'm staying with and once they know then I know I will be able to walk around there without freaking out people who get worried about that crap and I can give the person I'm staying with's neighbor some peace of mind.
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
Authority?? Free fucking country. You have no argument here, except that in this case I will admit it was good advice he could have followed, but there is no reason he had to follow it. What if skittleboy turned out to be the person robbing the neighborhood and Zimmerman instead caught him and held him until police arrived? A 911 dispatcher would recommend against this, but it is perfectly legal. But how would Zimmerman or 911 dispatcher know this before it happened? The 911 dispatcher in this case was lucky and happened to give the correct advise.
Click to expand...


That's not realistic. You ever see people running around on the net who call themselves "sheepdogs"? They're not cops, but still think they need to run around protecting people who didn't ask for it?

Either of those clowns can push up on my door and see how it works out.
 
dannno said:
Authority?? Free fucking country. You have no argument here, except that in this case I will admit it was good advice he could have followed, but there is no reason he had to follow it. What if skittleboy turned out to be the person robbing the neighborhood and Zimmerman instead caught him and held him until police arrived? A 911 dispatcher would recommend against this, but it is perfectly legal. But how would Zimmerman or 911 dispatcher know this before it happened? The 911 dispatcher in this case was lucky and happened to give the correct advise.




If somebody was following me around I would either head straight home or confront them by casually saying 'hi' and starting up a conversation. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have acted like a total dick, but after skittleboy explained he was visiting his aunt and gave him the address of where she lived he would have backed off.. but instead, according to Zimmerman, he just straight up attacked him.

Now, again, I wasn't there, I have no idea what actually transpired, but in order to convict Zimmerman of murder, you have to prove that he wasn't attacked by skittleboy and that is going to be very difficult now that our star witness for skittleboy, who was not only his gf but was on a cell phone and didn't actually see what happened anyway.. she can barely read and that testimony is sounding really weak.
Click to expand...

And the same goes both ways as far as free country. Upon who's authority is Zimmerman entitled to chase down someone and demand their itinerary? I don't think burglaries occurring entitle homeowners to chase down pedestrians and demand their name,address, and family relationships as they are walking through the neighborhood. I am not a buttinski neighbor though and I absolutely detest those that take it upon themselves to interfere in the lives of others. To blame the dead guy for having an illiterate girlfriend by saying it somehow helps the defenses case, well that's sad.
 
RickyJ said:
I heard plenty of people laughing in the court room, apparently none of them were jurors though. He was getting a reading on the jury he was dealing with here. It is better to know that at the start of the trial than midway through or near the end. Now he knows the right path to take for his defense of Zimmerman. He knows many on this jury probably were not telling the truth when they said they never heard of George Zimmerman before. That is very important info for a defense attorney to know about.
Click to expand...
I doubt they questioned whether or not the people had heard of Zimmerman during jury selection. They surely questioned how much they had heard though.

At best, 3 of the 6 could have told the prosecutor they had not heard anything about the trial, the prosecutor could read them as having their mind made up and select them. Or the defense could have found three people who said the same thing, he might read them as not having their mind made up and select them. It isn't really a yes or no kind of question but a question of to what extent. (at least, if the people were at all competent, which is hard to argue for)

There are other things that would play roles in their decision as well. The defense should generally have an idea of who the jurors are.

The joke might work in his favor, I doubt it. Unless Zimmerman was aware and agreed to it I find it offensive that that would be the standard of his representation. Even if he was the one who hired the man.
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
I doubt they questioned whether or not the people had heard of Zimmerman during jury selection. They surely questioned how much they had heard though.

At best, 3 of the 6 could have told the prosecutor they had not heard anything about the trial, the prosecutor could read them as having their mind made up and select them. Or the defense could have found three people who said the same thing, he might read them as not having their mind made up and select them. It isn't really a yes or no kind of question but a question of to what extent. (at least, if the people were at all competent, which is hard to argue for)

There are other things that would play roles in their decision as well. The defense should generally have an idea of who the jurors are.

The joke might work in his favor, I doubt it. Unless Zimmerman was aware and agreed to it I find it offensive that that would be the standard of his representation. Even if he was the one who hired the man.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of what would work when you have a jury that has seen videos that were scrubbed to make it look like Zimmerman had no injuries, the threat of being looked at as racist, and all of the other media playout. It's a rough way to start a trial. I think the joke was a shock...look at all the shock even from non-jurists.
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
That's where option 1 comes in - go straight home. What if skittleboy didn't go straight home? What if he turned around and went after Zimmerman who was following him?
Click to expand...
Then I would say Wannabe-Rent-a-pig got what was coming his way. You remember being a kid and if you asked someone's business they would say MYOB? I guess no one ever told Wannabe-Rent-a-pig that. Or being a Wannabe-Rent-a-pig was ingrained in his blood, as is the case with many a nosy neighbor.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
I've had a bad fever all week, which means I've stayed home from work bed ridden. I've watched the entirety of day 2 and day 3 of the trial, and part of todays.

I concur with the OP. I'm absolutely flabergasted at the media coverage of this. The state's case is a complete clusterfuck. They don't have a single credible witness. The star witness is an illiterate, rude, thug girl who has previously lied under oath and has already changed her testimony several times. If there were an odds market for this case, I'd bet "not guilty" would currently be running about 99 to 1. Yet when I turn on the TV I hear the exact opposite. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Where are you watching the trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Police State Has a New Playbook: Martial Law, One City at a Time
Replies
1
Views
39
PAF
PAF
PAF
Divide and Conquer: The Government’s Propaganda of Fear and Fake News
Replies
1
Views
617
acptulsa
acptulsa
ClaytonB
Let us remember the torture and rape of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
379
acptulsa
acptulsa
Anti Federalist
Dove Faces Boycott for Partnering with ‘Fat Liberation’ Activist
Replies
3
Views
744
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Swordsmyth
Dreams of the Dark Bill of Rights
Replies
0
Views
2K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top