R.I.P Trayvon

beh235 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree it doesnt add up

Them dismissing the expert testimony regarding the 911 call was huge for the defense
 
ServeChilled81 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The prosecution only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ initiated the altercation and murdered TM. Doesn't matter who was winning at any particular point of the fight.. CLEARLY we see who won the fight in the end, only one man left standing.
 
I thought the other witness said that GZ flipped the body over to give him cpr. But this picture doesn't indicate that.

Edit: So, who flipped TM on his back? I feel like the last witness lied.
 
Last edited:
Also I have a quick question for all of the people thinking there is some doubt in who was the aggressor and that maybe GZ wasn't completely in the wrong.

FACT: GZ was pursuing TM after the police said they didn't need him to...

What do you all think his intentions were when he finally caught up to him? He had no authority to question him or detain him... What exactly do you think his goal in pursuit was? (Other than to take the law into his own hands) :nerd:
 
Last edited:
Can't they just get the autopsy doctors to testify that TM had no bruising or GZ blood on his hands? If that's the case then that directly refutes the defense story...like even if TM was on top, he could have been mounting GZ and yelling help! Help! To just keep him from doing anything. I'd be more willing to accept actual physical evidence than stories from darkness, it's more convincing imo
 
Mojodmonky1 said:
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.
well said.
Click to expand...
the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, because that's what their entire case is based around .....

and thus far, they haven't done that.

there's no debating HOW TM died... so it's not like the jury is also being asked to determine if he died in the way described. so again, the defense has more to prove than the prosecution.

the 2nd degree aspect, im assuming, comes from a) the fact that he pursued the victim .... and b) it was not an act of self defense

manslaughter, as I understand it would be a case where they were tussling and the gun accidentally discharged.... i could be wrong tho.
 
So the officer turned him over not GZ. So does that make the last witness untrustworthy because he clearly lied under oath?
 
011781 said:
the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, because that's what their entire case is based around .....

and thus far, they haven't done that.

there's no debating HOW TM died... so it's not like the jury is also being asked to determine if he died in the way described. so again, the defense has more to prove than the prosecution.

the 2nd degree aspect, im assuming, comes from a) the fact that he pursued the victim .... and b) it was not an act of self defense

manslaughter, as I understand it would be a case where they were tussling and the gun accidentally discharged.... i could be wrong tho.
Click to expand...

The defense does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was self-defense. Florida has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN'T self defense.
 
More water for Don West of course
laugh.gif
.
 
I don't know how you're calm after you just killed someone...even if self defense I'd need some kind of therapy and would be hysterical
 
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...
You're being too emotional.  Think logically.

Evidence is just that--evidence.  That doesn't mean that it is the 100% truth though, as far as testimonies go.

Yes, we all know Zimmerman is a coward.  Only cowards call the police on a kid who appears to be 7-9 years old.  
mean.gif


Yes, we know Martin had every right to be where he was that night.  And it infuriates me that my people get profiled as "suspicious" for no damn reason.

Yes, we know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and shot and killed him.

What we DON'T know is how it got to that point.  Following someone doesn't always end in someone getting shot.  Saying "******g punks" and "they always get away" doesn't always end in someone getting shot.  

Do I believe that Zimmerman is liable for this situation?  HELL YES.  Do I think that his following of Trayvon may have led to Trayvon confronting Zimmerman?  Yep.  Do I believe that Trayvon had every right to confront the man who was following him?  Without a doubt!  I'd do the EXACT same thing, if that is how it really went down.  

But all my opinions on the situation don't hold weight in a court of law.  You don't convict people just because you "think" or "feel" they're guilty.  There has to be PROOF.  A dead body doesn't equal murder, in the true legal definition of the term.  A dead body COULD equal murder, but if you didn't know every single detail of what happened up until that body dropped, couldn't it also equal self-defense?  Of course it could.  In a court of law, you can't take A + B + C and leave out D to get to E, if that makes sense.  You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the "D" part of that equation before you get to E.  

Like I said, this situation is sad because the only person who knows the full story is Zimmerman.  And he isn't snitching on himself.

Honestly, what really needs to be addressed is the ****** up Stand Your Ground law.  That's the real culprit here because without that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  It boggles my mind that you can initiate a confrontation by following someone and then kill that person in "self-defense" when they exercise their legal rights to stand their ground!  
 
LyonBC1 said:
I don't know how you're calm after you just killed someone...even if self defense I'd need some kind of therapy and would be hysterical
Click to expand...
Between that and the testimony from this witness right now of how Zimmerman interrupted him while he was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife and said "just tell her I shot somebody", seems like this was a regular activity for Zimmerman or something. 
 
moonmaster3 said:
The defense does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was self-defense. Florida has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN'T self defense.
Click to expand...
that's true, but at the same time not accurate imo.... 

like I said, there's no debate about how he died --- GZ shot him ... he coherently pulled the trigger and shot him (to protect himself, allegedly)

it's not case of GZ pulling out the gun and it just going off unintentionally...

with that said, if the jury doesn't believe it was self-defense then the only other conclusion they can come to is that the guy shot him with no valid reason to do so --- hence murder charges

so again, the defense imo has a lot more to prove ... it can only be one or the other, murder or self-defense, based on what we already know as fact ....  if the jury has doubt about self-defense, he's being found guilty
 
011781 said:
Mojodmonky1 said:
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.

well said.
Click to expand...

the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, because that's what their entire case is based around .....

and thus far, they haven't done that.

there's no debating HOW TM died... so it's not like the jury is also being asked to determine if he died in the way described. so again, the defense has more to prove than the prosecution.

the 2nd degree aspect, im assuming, comes from a) the fact that he pursued the victim .... and b) it was not an act of self defense

manslaughter, as I understand it would be a case where they were tussling and the gun accidentally discharged.... i could be wrong tho.
Click to expand...

defense doesnt have to "prove" squat.

onus is always on the prosecution. thats the fundamental basis of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
 
It's almost seems like GZ followed him, knew the Florida stand your ground laws thoroughly, and was licking his lips when a fight erupted because he knew he could fire away and claim self-defense. Scary.

No proof of this, just a thought.
 
West be reaching man.... lol

the thing that's so annoying about his approach is that he talks to people like their ******g clueless and born just hours before being questioned by him...

the jury knows that any rational person knows the difference between a person that's calm and one that seems like they just experienced some tragic event

"would the signs warn ppl coming into the neighborhood that someone is watching" .... lol.. bro... **** outta here.
 
We need some professionals here in photography and how people fall as they get shot.. Don West is throwing out all these claims about how TM's knees are bent a certain way, how the flashlight is lighting up one area and the surroundings ARE indicative of how it truly was. We all know cameras on phones generally suck in low light and also how sensitive our own eyes are... He is truly leading the jury down a skewed road.
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
It's almost seems like GZ followed him, knew the Florida stand your ground laws thoroughly, and was licking his lips when a fight erupted because he knew he could fire away and claim self-defense. Scary.

No proof of this, just a thought.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Buddy knew exactly what he was doing. Vigilante policing for sure.
 
Mojodmonky1 said:
defense doesnt have to "prove" squat.

onus is always on the prosecution. thats the fundamental basis of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
Click to expand...
the jury has been hearing all case long that it was self-defense and that's what this entire case revolves around.... 

so put it like this...

if at the end of the case the jurors all agree that the State DIDN'T PROVE it wasn't self defense........ but the same time, the Defense DIDN'T make a case that it was self defense..... then what?

so neither side make a case for their client ... both failed..

what's the verdict in your opinion and why?
 
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