Posted on 07/11/2013 4:59:59 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Got this over at Hot Air and thought it’s a good thing to have in our thread:
The problem has been the focus on irrelevant arguments – some of which are actually unsupported by the evidence.
1. ‘GZ racially profiled TM’
There is no evidence of this.
2. ‘GZ disobeyed an order by the police’
* The civilian dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he did not give GZ an order and, in fact, he, like his fellow dispatchers, are trained not make comments that sound like commands.
* Noffke also testified under cross that, as a result of his asking GZ which way TM was going, GZ could have reasonably interpreted this as being asked to follow Martin.
* It is also not a crime in Florida to disregard a comment made by a civilian dispatcher
3. ‘GZ got out of his car’
Not a crime on public property and not negligent either.
4. ‘GZ followed TV’
Again, anyone can follow anyone on a public street unless the followee has obtained a restraining order against the follower and even there, the RS only places time, place, and manner restrictions on the person enjoined.
5. ‘GZ wasn’t really injured’
* Under Florida’s self-defence laws, one doesn’t have to be injured AT ALL to use deadly force
* No one is required to refrain from defending himself while another is engaged in or attempting to commit a felony (I posted the self-defence law earlier on this thread)
6. ‘TM is dead through no fault of his own’
* If you believe that TM assaulted GZ, then he IS dead as a result of his own actions
7. ‘GZ could have left’
* Under Florida law, there is not a duty to withdraw rather than use deadly force
* TM was straddling GZ so how the latter was supposed to leave the scene is unanswered
8. ‘GZ was armed and TM wasn’t’
* One’s fists can be considered weapons and can result in severe bodily harm or death, as I proved above in my link regarding the murder of the Utah soccer referee, who was punched once in the face by a teenage player
* GZ was legally carrying a weapon
* There is no requirement under the law that the same weapon be used by the assailant
* A homeowner can kill an intruder whether or not he has been threatened
* Those that attack cannot feign surprise if they are met with superior firepower
9. ‘Stand Your Ground!’
* SYG is NOT at issue in this trial.
* The defence is a classic self-defence case
10. ‘Black men NEVER get to use SYG!’
* Wrong http://tinyurl.com/nboht35
11. ‘GZ is a man and TM was a boy!’
* As if ‘boys’ don’t commit murder, rape, and assault everyday in this country
Hmmm ... not a bad idea.
>> What is an “overloaded” gun?
To the liberal mind, that’s a gun with ammunition in it.
I have a theory he might have been carrying someting other that the tea and Skittles he wanted to ditch before he confronted GZ.
“If he was home, why did he circle back?”
1. To jump Zimmerman.
2. To break in someplace. Were there break-in things found?
Z was ‘cleaned up.’ Was Martin? Someone posted a bunch of things about tampered-with evidence.
What’s the average age of a Chicago gangbang shooter/victim?
Corey looks like a female impersonator - a really bad female impersonator.
The defense will close. I am guessing based on what we have seen so far that MOM will do a masterful point by point rendition of the facts referencing the testimony and other evidence. He will be calm and earnest until the end when he will discuss the jury instructions and what the jury must believe to find Z guilty.
My guess, certainly not evidence, is that Jeantel urged him to kick the crazy ass cracker's butt.
That was the most pathetic closing I have ever witnessed. I’m predicting a NOT GUILTY by 8 p.m. tomorrow.
************
You maybe correct. But, don’t forget that the state gets the final rebuttal once the defense completes their closing arguments. So they get to punch holes in the defense and theirs will be the last words heard before the judge sends them into deliberations.
Zimmerman also did an interview and did the reenactment before he had a lawyer or had been charged with anything. If he had intentionally killed the thug I don’t think he would be have been so willing to talk to cops before he had a lawyer. That is unless he’s the dumbest person who ever lived. And like you said if you intend on killing someone are you going to call the cops and tell them about the suspect? Of course not. Zimmerman knew he had done nothing wrong and was not afraid of telling the truth. When that lying Bozo the Clown said that Zimmerman kept lying and changing his story, what interview has he been listening to. The first thing he told the cops after they arrived was he was attacked and he started hollering for help over and over, and no one came. Good Lord, everything he has said has been the truth. He had nothing to hide and didn’t try to hide anything.
I can’t believe we’re all this way down this road and I still haven’t heard the knock-knock joke.
“So they get to punch holes in the defense and theirs will be the last words heard before the judge sends them into deliberations.”
Which is when the State will play the race card and imply riots/OJ trial aftermath.
To leave off his MJ and blunts? If so, why not his Watermelon and Skittles? Go figure.
do you know if that interview can be reviewed by jury...was it entered as evidence or...IIRC, it was played in court in front of jury (by the dumbazz persecutors...?)
OR... he had hidden his ‘break in’ tool in the bushes right after he first saw Zimmerman, and after he got home safe, he decided to go back and get it. That’s why he came popping out of the bushes and confronted Zimmerman. He was in the bushes trying to find it when he heard Zimmerman on the phone talking.
Well, he was probably mad by then, being ‘interrupted’ again, so he decided to DECK THIS FOOL.
My take on Day 1 was the BDLR would not wear well with the jury over time, but that MOM would. Almost 2 weeks later, I think that is even more true than I’d have expected.
MOM seems more even-tempered, almost as if he’s a kindergarten teacher, patient to explain, doesn’t get upset when testimony isn’t what he seems to want, just says “OK” and rephrases or recasts until he does get what he wants, and he is calm in dealing with kids(prosecutors)having little hissy fits. I didn’t expect to come away quite so impressed as I am.
If it’s in evidence, they have to ask the court to play it for them.
Maybe he was smart enough to know that stashing the Watermelon and Skittles with the pot would be a tipoff that it was his if somebody else found it.
“they make a lot of noise about retrying him, and accept a plea to the only crime he actually committed: littering.”
Yea, but it was hazardous waste—I think that carries a longer sentence.
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.