R.I.P Trayvon

If Dee Dee lies was such a big deal as everyone keeps thinkin it is

Then GZ bout to get the death penalty

Even Mr Good just said he aint see no head slamming

Too bad this whole case is about fighting the law and we all know when fighting the law

Law always wins
 
MikeJeffJo said:
Didn't I tell you yesterday

When dude take the stand he's going to say GZ was on the bottom

After all the women have stated TM was on the bottom

Thing is like ol girl yesterday who has GZ brother on her twitt or fb that guy is familiar with GZ too and is her neighbor I'm not saying they bussom buddies or nothing just that they are acquainted



Hmmmmm
Click to expand...

Yeah, it kind of seems that way. The colombian lady said that she saw the person with a red and black jacket on top. But dude said the red and black jacket was on the bottom. The witness a couple of days ago said that the person on top was the person who stood up after the gun shot. So, I don't know. Also, does the defense continuos mention of mma help or hurt GZ being that he was I guess somewhat mma trained?
 
Yep

But check this out

Dude didn't want to get involved in this at all at 1st

Then all of a sudden decided yeah ok I'll do it

I wonder what made him changed his mind

Half a qtr mill maybe

Iono its just a thought
 
I may be in the minority here, but I dont see how GZ gets convicted here. The state has done a terrible job of proving their case. It seems like all the witnesses theyve called thus far have been pseudo defense witnesses.
 
Mojodmonky1 said:
I may be in the minority here, but I dont see how GZ gets convicted here. The state has done a terrible job of proving their case. It seems like all the witnesses theyve called thus far have been pseudo defense witnesses.
Click to expand...

Tell us why you feel like GZ is right in this case?
 
Idk but when he played the recording back from Mr. Good's phone call, I paid attention to the screams in the back. I heard "help!" repeatedly. To me, it sounded like a teenager as opposed to a grown man. The voice sounded young. If TM was on top of GZ, why would he be yelling for help while punching him? (if that's what they are trying to paint here). Wouldn't he just run away if he was on top? (having the best advantage to get away from danger).
 
Doesn't matter who was on top... All that matters was who was the INITIAL aggressor... the person "winning" the fight is not necessarily the aggressor. If GZ was the aggressor... and he was armed.... TM literally had the legal right to defend himself (with deadly force) against an armed man who was an aggressor towards him. The fact that TM was on top at any given point in the fight is COMPLETELY irrelevant... Whoever was screaming help is irrelevant too... Even still, why would an armed man be screaming help anyway? That makes no sense... Clearly he had no issue using his firearm... No need for him to be screaming help, he had all the help he needed on his hip :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
beh235 said:
Idk but when he played the recording back from Mr. Good's phone call, I paid attention to the screams in the back. I heard "help!" repeatedly. To me, it sounded like a teenager as opposed to a grown man. The voice sounded young. If TM was on top of GZ, why would he be yelling for help while punching him? (if that's what they are trying to paint here). Wouldn't he just run away if he was on top? (having the best advantage to get away from danger).
Click to expand...
That's what gets me. That voice sounds like a younger man.
 
DWalk31 said:
Doesn't matter who was on top... All that matters was who was the INITIAL aggressor... the person "winning" the fight is not necessarily the aggressor. If GZ was the aggressor... and he was armed.... TM literally had the legal right to defend himself (with deadly force) against an armed man who was an aggressor towards him. The fact that TM was on top at any given point in the fight is COMPLETELY irrelevant... Whoever was screaming help is irrelevant too... Even still, why would an armed man be screaming help anyway... that makes no sense... Clearly he had no issue using his firearm... No need for him to be screaming help, he had all the help he needed on his hip :rolleyes
Click to expand...

I agree, just cause TM may have been attacked first..if you did see him on top shouldnt matter if he was defending himself to begin with

but it seems like they're trying to tie them together

whoever was on top was the initiator. Not saying thats true but it feels like both sides are trying to make that point in their favor for the most part in this case
 
Nothinafta said:
Tell us why you feel like GZ is right in this case?
Click to expand...
he never stated he thought that Zimmerman was right; he was merely stating that he didn't think he would be convicted. I'm inclined to agree. I don't think the evidence , emotions aside, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. That doesn't mean I support him or think his action was justified. He's being tried in a court of law not a court of public opinion
 
Whoever dude was a witness for, it doesn't even matter.

Zimmerman isn't getting convicted of 2nd Degree Murder.  A blind man can see that.  I WANT him to be convicted of something because I believe he is liable for creating the situation that led to Martin's death, but there has been no evidence whatsoever that shows that he set out with intentions to murk Trayvon.  NONE.  

Manslaughter would fit this situation much better than murder, IMO.  The State's witnesses and evidence have done nothing to show that he's guilty of murder.  And really, the witnesses from both sides are basically saying "I think that's what I saw".  There is nothing definitive in what they're saying, so I don't see how you convict a dude based on "I'm almost positive that's what I saw" types of testimony.

Sadly, the only living person who knows everything is Zimmerman.  And he damn sure isn't going to tell the whole story.  All I can hope for is some sort of lesser conviction and that Zimmerman gets beasted on in a civil suit. But he isn't going to be found guilty of murder.  
 
Elpablo21 said:
I agree, just cause TM may have been attacked first..if you did see him on top shouldnt matter if he was defending himself to begin with

but it seems like they're trying to tie them together

whoever was on top was the initiator. Not saying thats true but it feels like both sides are trying to make that point in their favor for the most part in this case
Click to expand...

Yea that's what it is now, but in the closing arguments, I'm positive the prosecution will state it doesn't matter. They only need to prove that GZ was the initial aggressor. TM was in a place he had a legal right to be... no matter how suspicious he "looked". Now if the defense can somehow provide some type of logic to the idea that GZ was following him and then he lost him and TM hopped out of the bushes and ambushed GZ :rolleyes then that's an entirely different issue. I don't think the defense will be able to give the jurors any reasonable doubt as to who was the initial aggressor, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Elpablo21 said:
DWalk31 said:
Doesn't matter who was on top... All that matters was who was the INITIAL aggressor... the person "winning" the fight is not necessarily the aggressor. If GZ was the aggressor... and he was armed.... TM literally had the legal right to defend himself (with deadly force) against an armed man who was an aggressor towards him. The fact that TM was on top at any given point in the fight is COMPLETELY irrelevant... Whoever was screaming help is irrelevant too... Even still, why would an armed man be screaming help anyway... that makes no sense... Clearly he had no issue using his firearm... No need for him to be screaming help, he had all the help he needed on his hip :rolleyes
Click to expand...

I agree, just cause TM may have been attacked first..if you did see him on top shouldnt matter if he was defending himself to begin with

but it seems like they're trying to tie them together

whoever was on top was the initiator. Not saying thats true but it feels like both sides are trying to make that point in their favor for the most part in this case
Click to expand...

I see what you saying DWalk, BUT aggressor or not. There is a yell for help. You screaming for help indicates you are in danger, correct? I'm not screaming for help and throwing blows on top of someone. If I'm on top of someone and screaming for help (and those screams appeared to be distress screams from what I heard) I'm running away. Who screams for help and keeps punching? Natural instinct is to run away.

Pabs, even if he was attacked first, if he's on top AND feels he's in danger, he would throw a few punches in defense to get enough distance, right? That being said the way help was being screamed wouldn't really match that action. I just can't see someone screaming for help while feeling they are in danger AND in a position where they could flee, but stay in the path of danger. That's not even logical, that's biological survival skills.
 
DWalk31 said:
Doesn't matter who was on top... All that matters was who was the INITIAL aggressor... the person "winning" the fight is not necessarily the aggressor. If GZ was the aggressor... and he was armed.... TM literally had the legal right to defend himself (with deadly force) against an armed man who was an aggressor towards him. The fact that TM was on top at any given point in the fight is COMPLETELY irrelevant... Whoever was screaming help is irrelevant too... Even still, why would an armed man be screaming help anyway? That makes no sense... Clearly he had no issue using his firearm... No need for him to be screaming help, he had all the help he needed on his hip :rolleyes
Click to expand...

It's relevant because the defense is trying to prove that GZ only used his gun because he was getting beat up. The witness said that the person on top shoulders were in a downward position, which makes me think that if TM was on top he was being held down so that he wouldn't run away because according to GZ "they always get away." The witness also said he didn't see punches being thrown by the person on top.
 
Last edited:
but there has been no evidence whatsoever that shows that he set out with intentions to murk Trayvon.  NONE. 
Click to expand...
Did Zimmerman have intentions to "murk Trayvon", maybe not.  However, using the words "******g punks" and "these ******** always get away" when describing a young male that you never met before in life and was definitely not doing anything illegal or that deemed him necessary to be followed by you as the aggressor in this situation is not a good look for Zimmerman at all. 
 
the evidence doesnt prove he murder him?

this coward shot and killed a child who committed no crime if that isnt murder what is it?
 
CashBanks said:
the evidence doesnt prove he murder him?

this coward shot and killed a child who committed no crime if that isnt murder what is it?
Click to expand...
It's all circumstantial and hearsay right now.

There is nothing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and was not in fear for his life when he used his weapon.

Thinking rationally and not emotionally I don't get the feeling that he's convicted of second degree murder.
 
beh235 said:
I see what you saying DWalk, BUT aggressor or not. There is a yell for help. You screaming for help indicates you are in danger, correct? I'm not screaming for help and throwing blows on top of someone. If I'm on top of someone and screaming for help (and those screams appeared to be distress screams from what I heard) I'm running away. Who screams for help and keeps punching? Natural instinct is to run away.

Pabs, even if he was attacked first, if he's on top AND feels he's in danger, he would throw a few punches in defense to get enough distance, right? That being said the way help was being screamed wouldn't really match that action. I just can't see someone screaming for help while feeling they are in danger AND in a position where they could flee, but stay in the path of danger. That's not even logical, that's biological survival skills.
Click to expand...

GZ being in danger... and yelling help due to getting beat up, still wouldn't excuse GZ for liability. TM literally had the right to KILL GZ under the stand your groud statute... If an armed man, who is an aggressor picks a fight with you, you're allowed to be winning the fight, and you don't have to stop until you have neutralized the threat. TM was literally fighting for his life... and lost. Whoever was screaming was irrelevant. And if GZ felt in danger... why would he follow the kid :rolleyes

ALSO GZ didn't need to have intentions... or premeditate murdering trayvon... Here's the relevant statutory language for 2nd degree murder under FL law:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
Last edited:
HarlemToTheBronx said:
It's all circumstantial and hearsay right now.

There is nothing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and was not in fear for his life when he used his weapon.

Thinking rationally and not emotionally I don't get the feeling that he's convicted of second degree murder.
Click to expand...

His following him CLEARLY initiated the confrontation... how'd you miss that :nerd: The only real chance he has is that half wit story that as he was pursuing TM, TM evaded him... then started pursuing him and ambushed him... No way a jury will buy that IMO |I

911 Call:
GZ: Yea I'm following him now
Operator: Sir we DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT
 
Last edited:
is it more important to prove that Trayvon Martin DID get the better of George Zimmerman during the fight or

that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation?
 
Deuce King said:
but there has been no evidence whatsoever that shows that he set out with intentions to murk Trayvon.  NONE. 
Click to expand...
Did Zimmerman have intentions to "murk Trayvon", maybe not.  However, using the words "******g punks" and "these ******** always get away" when describing a young male that you never met before in life and was definitely not doing anything illegal or that deemed him necessary to be followed by you as the aggressor in this situation is not a good look for Zimmerman at all. 
Click to expand...
I agree 100%!  It definitely isn't a good look and it does show that Zimmerman set out to handle the situation on his own.  But those words don't indicate murder.  Now if he said "these ******g punks---I'm gonna kill this ************", then yeah...proving murder wouldn't be near as difficult.  But there is no indication from his words that his intent was to handle the situation by killing Trayvon.  
 
Yall see this witness just cheesin to someone out in the hall then put on the
alien.gif
face when he walked in?
laugh.gif
 
timbo109 said:
Nothinafta said:
Tell us why you feel like GZ is right in this case?
Click to expand...
he never stated he thought that Zimmerman was right; he was merely stating that he didn't think he would be convicted. I'm inclined to agree. I don't think the evidence , emotions aside, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. That doesn't mean I support him or think his action was justified. He's being tried in a court of law not a court of public opinion
Click to expand...

thanks Timbo.

The onus is on the prosection to prove beyond a a reasonable doubt. they arent even close right now. their own witnesses are contradicting the narrative that they are trying to set. there has been very little, if any, evidence that backs up the prosecution's narrative. the only chance that GZ gets convicted is if the jury decides based on emotion instead of the facts and testimony that have been presented before them. Then again, it is FL. Anything can happen.


superblyTRIFE said:
Whoever dude was a witness for, it doesn't even matter.

Zimmerman isn't getting convicted of 2nd Degree Murder.  A blind man can see that.  I WANT him to be convicted of something because I believe he is liable for creating the situation that led to Martin's death, but there has been no evidence whatsoever that shows that he set out with intentions to murk Trayvon.  NONE.  

Manslaughter would fit this situation much better than murder, IMO.  The State's witnesses and evidence have done nothing to show that he's guilty of murder.  And really, the witnesses from both sides are basically saying "I think that's what I saw".  There is nothing definitive in what they're saying, so I don't see how you convict a dude based on "I'm almost positive that's what I saw" types of testimony.

Sadly, the only living person who knows everything is Zimmerman.  And he damn sure isn't going to tell the whole story.  All I can hope for is some sort of lesser conviction and that Zimmerman gets beasted on in a civil suit. But he isn't going to be found guilty of murder.  
Click to expand...

well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
R.I.P. Paul Reubens AKA Pee-wee Herman
Replies
13
Views
577
$tacy
$tacy

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom