Posted on 07/01/2013 5:17:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 1st, is DAY #16 (of 4th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Last week the prosecution feebly presented the first series of witnesses against George Zimmerman. However, as most observers would note, the witnesses called by the state have so far been more beneficial for the Zimmerman Self-Defense position.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Even though spare tire said that’s what TM said I don’t believe most of her testimony. I think he went looking for a fight, spare tire basicly said the same thing.
Women are programmed to be submissive by the same evolutionary forces.
You're not married, are you?
GZ said one time that he wouldnt follow Martin because of his wife.
He has told conflicting stories about WHY he got out of the car.
You are mixing two things.
If you break off contact, or try to retreat, then you have recovered your innocence and are no longer the aggressor who started the fatal interaction.
However, if someone escalates to deadly force, then THEY are the aggressor in a new level of violence. You never lose your right to defend your life.
If Z shot Martin, and Martin then shot back, Z couldn’t use Martin’s shot back to justify a third shot. However, if Martin was the first to use violence that could kill or seriously injure Z, then MARTIN was the aggressor in using deadly force. And someone always has the right to protect themselves from a deadly or very serious attack.
According to Zimmerman, he went for his gun when he concluded Martin was going for Zimmerman’s gun. That creates a reasonable fear that Martin was going to kill Zimmerman. It is up to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin did NOT go for Zimmerman’s gun, and that Zimmerman shot Martin out of hatred and malice. Given the injuries to Zimmerman, that was always an uphill battle.
A DARN good question. I hope the defense asks it.
Of course the answer will be that, being black, he didn't feel he could trust the racist whitey police.
Still, it's a pretty good question.
that I don’t know...it could have been more than one bag..OR he could have stolen another one..but probably not likely
I would like to know more about the skittles on the porch.
perhaps I am using the wrong terminology as I am not a gun person.
The HOLSTER was visible if GZ moved and it was demonstrated in court.
Martin's mother has no say in the game...she wasn't there...and knows no such thing.
And, in fact....Jenteal confirmed that TM confronted GZ.
Oh come on RC, he had a long coat on if you remember correctly. Also, the first cop to arrive couldn’t see it until GZ exposed it to him by lifting up his arms to pull the coat back so he could see it and take it from him.
HAHAHAHAHA!!
It was pretty dark by that time.
the the cell phone tracking, martin went to his father’s house and then went BACK to confront zimmer who had gone in a different direction.
so far we have a clueless ear witness, two ear witnesses, one eye witness, witnessess who corroberate the physical evidence, and an audo expert that makes the audio only witnesses worthless other than for time alone. MUCH MUCH doubt.
Heck, they were joking about it!
Let me ask you this:
Jury believes Diamond Eugene. Believes the Get off Get off..believes GZ is the aggressor.
Doesn’t the burden shift to GZ .
For me, you LOSE the right to self defense if you are the aggressor UNLESS and UNTIL you gain it back by
1
2
3
4
and those things are outlined after the word “UNLESS”
“...to know more about the skittles on the porch.”
From the last few comments I have seen, it seems that they know that Martin only bought one bag of Skittles, a a bag of Skittles was found in his hoody pocket. I guess he could have already had a bag of Skittles, or perhaps the bag in his pocket was open; and some had spilled out onto the porch.
BUT - some on FR have nicknamed Martin as “Skittles” - I wonder if you had read someone’s post saying something like “Yeah - that big gal said that “Skittles” was on the porch”.???
Because as you say - having evidence of Skittles candy on the porch might be important.
Or not. “Martin dropped his bag of skittles on the ground while watching the game; so he had to go to the store to buy some more.”
dragnet2: If it's wet grass you hear, a creepy a** cracker is near.
Sterling! Just go straight to Pulitzer - you've won the prize!
‘I just told him to run,’ Rachel told the court, adding that her friend was breathing heavily.
The pair then got cut off and when she called him back he told her he was back at his father’s fiancee’s house and he thought he had lost the man.
For reference. This is why I say the prosecution’s sworn testimony place Saint Skittles at “his father’s fiancee’s house” prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman. If he felt unsafe, all he had to do was open the door and walk in...but he did not. Instead, he went looking for Zimmerman.
No kidding. And I really tried to find a photo of an upholstered gun. I thought , surely someone has done that by now. They've done everything else to them.
But no. That was as close as I could get.
I just had to tease you because I know how it happens. I do it all the time, but I usually catch myself. Usually.
No, the Defense attorney SPECIFICALLY said he had a short coat and ACTUALLY demonstrated how easy it was to see the holster.
He made a couple of different moves to show how easy it was to see it.
I think O’mara is the one that did it.
You claim O’Mara should not ask any more questions.
Let’s wait to see who is right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.