R.I.P Trayvon

HarlemToTheBronx said:
Was that DNA evidence presented to the jury? Haven't been able to watch everything.
Click to expand...
im not sure, but im still not buying i got a gun on my hip that is right next to my phone, in which i went for the phone on at least 2/3 occasions and never noticed i have a 9mm right next to it....
tired.gif
 
Seeds of doubt, people.  Seeds of doubt.

While 99.9% of people hearing this back and forth (hopefully including the jury) between the medical examiner and O'Mara can see that Zimmerman's injuries were not the result of a "ground and pound", O'Mara is doing a good job of sticking to his guns.  All he has wanted her to say are those magic words:  it's possible.  

All O'Mara wants to convey is that it isn't written in stone that Zimmerman received his injuries from 1 or 2 single blows to the head, even though logic, a.k.a. science, is showing otherwise.  It is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but he's simply planting seeds of doubt in the juror's mind.  He wants them to think "what if?", which is what a good defense lawyer does.  That's all it takes for an acquittal.  On the surface it looks like he's getting destroyed, but at the end he got what he was fishing for and that was for her to admit that it's a possibility (albeit a huge stretch and leap in logic, IMO).    

This whole back and forth between these two sums up what I HATE about the "justice" system--facts and logic sometimes get overlooked because of a sliver of doubt.  Look at the O.J. trial--we all knew damn well Orenthal murked those folks. 
laugh.gif
  But with some slick and slimy tactics from his defense team, dude walks.  I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen here, although I hope I'm wrong.  
 
superblyTRIFE said:
Seeds of doubt, people.  Seeds of doubt.

While 99.9% of people hearing this back and forth (hopefully including the jury) between the medical examiner and O'Mara can see that Zimmerman's injuries were not the result of a "ground and pound", O'Mara is doing a good job of sticking to his guns.  All he has wanted her to say are those magic words:  it's possible.  

All O'Mara wants to convey is that it isn't written in stone that Zimmerman received his injuries from 1 or 2 single blows to the head, even though logic, a.k.a. science, is showing otherwise.  It is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but he's simply planting seeds of doubt in the juror's mind.  He wants them to think "what if?", which is what a good defense lawyer does.  That's all it takes for an acquittal.  On the surface it looks like he's getting destroyed, but at the end he got what he was fishing for and that was for her to admit that it's a possibility (albeit a huge stretch and leap in logic, IMO).    

This whole back and forth between these two sums up what I HATE about the "justice" system--facts and logic sometimes get overlooked because of a sliver of doubt.  Look at the O.J. trial--we all knew damn well Orenthal murked those folks. :lol:   But with some slick and slimy tactics from his defense team, dude walks.  I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen here, although I hope I'm wrong.  
Click to expand...
I don't think OJ did do it. I mean c'mon he has a book saying how he woulda did it IF he DID do it and it was no way close to how it actually happened. Leave my man Orenthal alone







not srs
 
is it me or does Zimmerman look more comfortable in the courtroom now...

son found out he wouldn't need to testify and lost about 3 pounds
 
Well that's it for today.  That last witness was in and out in record time, done within 10 minutes. 
 
superblyTRIFE said:
Seeds of doubt, people.  Seeds of doubt.

While 99.9% of people hearing this back and forth (hopefully including the jury) between the medical examiner and O'Mara can see that Zimmerman's injuries were not the result of a "ground and pound", O'Mara is doing a good job of sticking to his guns.  All he has wanted her to say are those magic words:  it's possible.  

All O'Mara wants to convey is that it isn't written in stone that Zimmerman received his injuries from 1 or 2 single blows to the head, even though logic, a.k.a. science, is showing otherwise.  It is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but he's simply planting seeds of doubt in the juror's mind.  He wants them to think "what if?", which is what a good defense lawyer does.  That's all it takes for an acquittal.  On the surface it looks like he's getting destroyed, but at the end he got what he was fishing for and that was for her to admit that it's a possibility (albeit a huge stretch and leap in logic, IMO).    

This whole back and forth between these two sums up what I HATE about the "justice" system--facts and logic sometimes get overlooked because of a sliver of doubt.  Look at the O.J. trial--we all knew damn well Orenthal murked those folks. :lol:   But with some slick and slimy tactics from his defense team, dude walks.  I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen here, although I hope I'm wrong.  
Click to expand...

Was thinking this the whole time. Didn't want to rain on everyone's parade though.
 
dcds07 said:
Don't any of you have jobs? Following a trial all day collecting unemployment? Sad life.
Click to expand...


Working on a Doctorate and collecting that unemployment. Come at me, bro.



So Trayvon Martin did have bruises or scratches on his hand?


Originally Posted by superblyTRIFE View Post

Seeds of doubt, people. Seeds of doubt.

While 99.9% of people hearing this back and forth (hopefully including the jury) between the medical examiner and O'Mara can see that Zimmerman's injuries were not the result of a "ground and pound", O'Mara is doing a good job of sticking to his guns. All he has wanted her to say are those magic words: it's possible.

All O'Mara wants to convey is that it isn't written in stone that Zimmerman received his injuries from 1 or 2 single blows to the head, even though logic, a.k.a. science, is showing otherwise. It is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but he's simply planting seeds of doubt in the juror's mind. He wants them to think "what if?", which is what a good defense lawyer does. That's all it takes for an acquittal. On the surface it looks like he's getting destroyed, but at the end he got what he was fishing for and that was for her to admit that it's a possibility (albeit a huge stretch and leap in logic, IMO).

This whole back and forth between these two sums up what I HATE about the "justice" system--facts and logic sometimes get overlooked because of a sliver of doubt. Look at the O.J. trial--we all knew damn well Orenthal murked those folks. laugh.gif But with some slick and slimy tactics from his defense team, dude walks. I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen here, although I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Pretty much. As a defense attorney that's all he has to do.
 
Last edited:
^^ You guys are right but aren't you kind of assuming a bit of naivety on the part of the jury? I'd think the fact that you can get anyone to say anything is possible if you keep expanding the realm to include small percentage outcomes kinda limits how important that is. I'd think the fact that she said they were insignificant injuries and not in any way life threatening and not consistent with how GZ was describing it would hold more weight. That's my opinion though
 
Last edited:
CelticsFan9783 said:
superblyTRIFE said:
Seeds of doubt, people.  Seeds of doubt.

While 99.9% of people hearing this back and forth (hopefully including the jury) between the medical examiner and O'Mara can see that Zimmerman's injuries were not the result of a "ground and pound", O'Mara is doing a good job of sticking to his guns.  All he has wanted her to say are those magic words:  it's possible.  

All O'Mara wants to convey is that it isn't written in stone that Zimmerman received his injuries from 1 or 2 single blows to the head, even though logic, a.k.a. science, is showing otherwise.  It is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but he's simply planting seeds of doubt in the juror's mind.  He wants them to think "what if?", which is what a good defense lawyer does.  That's all it takes for an acquittal.  On the surface it looks like he's getting destroyed, but at the end he got what he was fishing for and that was for her to admit that it's a possibility (albeit a huge stretch and leap in logic, IMO).    

This whole back and forth between these two sums up what I HATE about the "justice" system--facts and logic sometimes get overlooked because of a sliver of doubt.  Look at the O.J. trial--we all knew damn well Orenthal murked those folks. :lol:   But with some slick and slimy tactics from his defense team, dude walks.  I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen here, although I hope I'm wrong.  
Click to expand...

Was thinking this the whole time. Didn't want to rain on everyone's parade though.
Click to expand...
but i mean ANYTHING is possible so it doesnt really fit well. we have a whole thread dedicated to possible things(the conspiracy and aliens thread) so that seed of doubt shouldnt even be taken into account. i mean its possible that the guy who killed jfk was really a patsy and framed as well as the guy who killed mlk
 
nawghtyhare said:
but i mean ANYTHING is possible so it doesnt really fit well. we have a whole thread dedicated to possible things(the conspiracy and aliens thread) so that seed of doubt shouldnt even be taken into account. i mean its possible that the guy who killed jfk was really a patsy and framed as well as the guy who killed mlk
Click to expand...

You are both correct. The defense attorney's job is to help create reasonable doubt. It is up to the jury to either believe it or discredit it. The state and defense counsel present their evidence, and its up to the jury to decide what they want to do with it and who they want to believe. There is no right or wrong answer.
 
shoefreakbaby said:
ohmygosher said:
A lot of you guys are too emotionally attached to this trial. Especially shoefreakbaby. I hope none of you do anything stupid if GZ walks.
Click to expand...

All the emotional people in this thread and you only mention me, sexist much. :/


I dont deny it I am emotionally attached.
He was from Miami and lived around my way and I saw his bro at walmart a little bit after the killing. lol

I would never hurt anyone so I would never do anything stupid.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be sexist.

I didn't know you had seen his brother after the shooting or that you were from the area. I guess if that was my situation as well, I'd also feel attached to the case a little bit.
 
Last edited:
Shady said:
Elpablo21 said:
problem is he shouldnt follow anyone (regardless of race) and call the cops (and not the non emergency line) if he believed a person was up to something serious
Click to expand...

Zimmerman had every right to follow and verbally interact with Martin that night. There are absolutely ZERO laws against those actions, and neither following, nor verbally interacting with Martin pushes the situation up the force scale.
Could it have made Martin nervous? Sure, but had both men acted maturely, the fight would not have happened.

From the point of view of the law, SOMEONE threw a punch. We don't know who it was, but its the only thing that really matters here. Had Zimmerman punched Martin first, Zimmerman would be guilty of at least manslaughter, if not outright murder.
BUT, if Martin threw the first punch, then Zimmerman is guilty of nothing but self defense, and under Florida law is immune from all criminal and civil prosecution.

Once again, we don't know who threw the first punch, and as such, we don't know who is at fault.
What everyone flat out arguing for Martin does not understand is that the only thing that matters is what happened from a legal perspective.
We all have heard from the media what might have happened had Zimmerman been in the wrong... yes, he might have killed martin in cold blood, but there are alternate narratives based on the evidence, one of which in fact is what Zimmerman has claimed all along.

Lets look at the last one though that nobody seems to be talking about.
Lets say that Martin does understand the laws, and realizes that if he attacks Zimmerman, he will be in the wrong. He still wants to make sure that Zimmerman is not some creeper, so he doubles back and confronts Zimmerman head on. Once again, Martin knows the laws and realizes that he can't just attack Zimmerman unprovoked, so he identifies himself, uses as much strong language as he likes, but eventually Zimmerman figures out that Martin lives where he does, and Martin figures out that Zimmerman is just trying to protect everyone in the neighborhood. Both men walk away unharmed, and the gun never comes into play.

The law is VERY cut and dry... very binary. It leaves absolutely no room for morals or ethics.
Once again, I know that nobody likes hearing this, but the Law is the only thing that matters here. It basically boils down to this: "if you are the aggressor, and your actions could cause grave bodily harm or death, then you are taking your life into your own hands, because the person you are attacking has every right to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. That includes taking your life."

Neither you, or I know who threw the first punch that night. But... given that head injuries are disorienting, and given that pounding a head on concrete is fully capable of killing someone, then Zimmerman would very likely have been "scared for his life" as is required by law to justify lethal force. If he initiated the use of force... not the encounter, but use of force, then he would be guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.
If Martin initiated use of force, then sadly the law says that Zimmerman is justified in taking Martin's life.

Also, for race discussion people may want to refer to this page and duly note the parents have withdrawn by their lawyer that this case is not about racial profiling:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...cution-star-witness-grilled-article-1.1384074
Click to expand...

but this goes back to broad interpretation of the law? scared for your life doesn't have to mean imminent threat of serious bodily harm. also how scared could he really be if he was armed? zimmerman should've called police and kept it moving. both men acting maturely doesn't mean it can end peacefully. i see what you're getting at in thinking if he just asked tray and tray responded peacefully then gz would've been out no problem. but the 911 call gz made suggest he already had a predisposition towards young blacks. he already judged the boy as being suspect.

also has it been determined that gz didn't roll up on the kid with his gun out? i mean the other witness is dead so itll just come down to immediate facts i guess.


to me this case seems harder to judge than i thought since the only witness to the altercation is the accused. still think gz is in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
R.I.P. Paul Reubens AKA Pee-wee Herman
Replies
13
Views
579
$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