Belly35;1467280 wrote: The injuries may not be life threading but what about the actions that created the injury. If someone attach you, punches you ... What are their intentions do you really know? In my opinion you have the expect the worst ... Once you're knocked out , one head kick what could happen?

I don't know how many fights you been in but for me I'm fight for my life and yes that fear is a driving force to survive. The more aggressive the opposition get, my aggressive, brutality and craziness is tripled and if that means ... Having to pull my weapon so be it

I've been in plenty of fights to know that the other person didn't want to kill me, just fuck me up. There is a difference.

gport_tennis;1467306 wrote:I say it is reasonable to fear for your life if you are being "ground and pounded" as the witness described he saw it. It only takes one punch(Utah soccer ref for example) for a situation to become deadly, and I don't think anyone is denying at this point that trayvon was in the dominate position beating George Zimmerman (if you believe the Zimmerman was on top then that is a diff story.)

With what the state has provided so far, I don't see a rational way the jury can convict. I just don't see the evidence or witness testimony showing he committed murder 2

No, I am not denying that TM was on top. I really believe that GZ was hoping that TM would punch him (or fight with him) so that he could shoot him. But I agree that as of right now, the evidence doesn't warrant a conviction. My only point was that yesterday was the first day where the prosecution actually got some points in my book, after getting destroyed last week.

sherm03;1467327 wrote: No, I am not denying that TM was on top. I really believe that GZ was hoping that TM would punch him (or fight with him) so that he could shoot him. But I agree that as of right now, the evidence doesn't warrant a conviction. My only point was that yesterday was the first day where the prosecution actually got some points in my book, after getting destroyed last week.

That has been your opinion the whole time or the facts of the trial lead to that conclusion. It just seems very illogical to assume he wanted to murder a kid he never met because he thought he could be one the people breaking into houses. And then to consciously think that if he let travyon get a couple hits in then he could shoot him and get off, seems more illogical

I think what happened was GZ questioned travyon, who didn't like being disrespected and took matters into his own hands. A simple flow of dialect between the 2
"excuse me, we have had some breaks ins lately. I don't recognize you and was curious to why you are here."

"Man, I'm just heading back to my dads gf crib"

"Sorry to bother you."

That's all this situation needed to be, its unfortunate that it irrupted into violence somehow and caused a life to be lost

sherm03;1467327 wrote:I've been in plenty of fights to know that the other person didn't want to kill me, just fuck me up. There is a difference.

You keep thinking that .. one punch or knock down crack your head ... you're dead or they are dead. What you where thinking just got fucked up...

The difference is you don't know and assuming is a bad idea. At what point is fuck me up turn to out of control?

This must be the same mentality that get girls raped ... they just know what the guy thinking ..


No, I am not denying that TM was on top. I really believe that GZ was hoping that TM would punch him (or fight with him) so that he could shoot him. But I agree that as of right now, the evidence doesn't warrant a conviction. My only point was that yesterday was the first day where the prosecution actually got some points in my book, after getting destroyed last week.

If GZ looking to get into a fight to shoot TM why call the police first?

gport_tennis;1467328 wrote:That has been your opinion the whole time or the facts of the trial lead to that conclusion. It just seems very illogical to assume he wanted to murder a kid he never met because he thought he could be one the people breaking into houses. And then to consciously think that if he let travyon get a couple hits in then he could shoot him and get off, seems more illogical

I think what happened was GZ questioned travyon, who didn't like being disrespected and took matters into his own hands. A simple flow of dialect between the 2
"excuse me, we have had some breaks ins lately. I don't recognize you and was curious to why you are here."

"Man, I'm just heading back to my dads gf crib"

"Sorry to bother you."

That's all this situation needed to be, its unfortunate that it irrupted into violence somehow and caused a life to be lost

It may be illogical, but that's how I see it happening. In my mind, the exchange was a little different...
GZ: Hey...stop!
TM: Who are you?
GZ: (pulls back his coat to show his gun) That's who I am.
Fight ensues. GZ fires his weapon.

But we'll never know if that's how it happened.

Belly35;1467332 wrote:If GZ looking to get into a fight to shoot TM why call the police first?

If he wasn't looking to get into a fight...why follow the guy in the first place?

sherm03;1467342 wrote:It may be illogical, but that's how I see it happening. In my mind, the exchange was a little different...
GZ: Hey...stop!
TM: Who are you?
GZ: (pulls back his coat to show his gun) That's who I am.
Fight ensues. GZ fires his weapon.

But we'll never know if that's how it happened.



If he wasn't looking to get into a fight...why follow the guy in the first place?

Why would TM try to fight a guy he knew had a gun? I don't care how big I am or how tough I think I am. If someone showed me they had a gun, I would run. The very last thing I would do is fight said person.

Fab4Runner;1467347 wrote:Why would TM try to fight a guy he knew had a gun? I don't care how big I am or how tough I think I am. If someone showed me they had a gun, I would run. The very last thing I would do is fight said person.

I am with you...and I agree. But I remember when I was 17 and thought I was invincible, too.

sherm03;1467342 wrote:It may be illogical, but that's how I see it happening. In my mind, the exchange was a little different...
GZ: Hey...stop!
TM: Who are you?
GZ: (pulls back his coat to show his gun) That's who I am.
Fight ensues. GZ fires his weapon.

But we'll never know if that's how it happened.



If he wasn't looking to get into a fight...why follow the guy in the first place?

He's neighborhood watch, that's what they do, they follow suspicious people, especially after a slew of break ins.

You really think this is like the movies where he shows his gun and then a fight breaks out? LOL Glad you're not a jury member.

sherm03;1467358 wrote:I am with you...and I agree. But I remember when I was 17 and thought I was invincible, too.

If you would have fought someone with a gun, even at 17, then you're stupid. no easy way to cut it.

Raw Dawgin' it;1467359 wrote:He's neighborhood watch, that's what they do, they follow suspicious people, especially after a slew of break ins.

You really think this is like the movies where he shows his gun and then a fight breaks out? LOL Glad you're not a jury member.

Yes...glad I'm not a jury member considering I've said a number of times on here that so far the evidence does not warrant a conviction. I am allowed to have my opinion on what I think happened, but still be open-minded enough to realize that if it ended today, he should be found not guilty because there is plenty of reasonable doubt out there.

And no...neighborhood watch is not supposed to get out of their car and follow people. That's why the non-emergency operator said "we don't need you to do that." They are supposed to call the police and have them follow-up on any suspicious person or activity that they see.

You really think this is like the movies where the neighborhood watch guy tracks down some suspicious character and tackles him and holds him there until the police show up? LOL

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1467363 wrote:If you would have fought someone with a gun, even at 17, then you're stupid. no easy way to cut it.

I know. That's why I said "I am with you" when Fab said she would run if someone showed her a gun. But there are plenty of times that people think they are going to be able to beat someone up despite knowing the fact that the person they are fighting is packing (see: every incident where someone tries to fight the cops).

sherm03;1467358 wrote:I am with you...and I agree. But I remember when I was 17 and thought I was invincible, too.

I would have been even more scared when I was a 17 year old kid, not less because I thought I was invincible.

Fab4Runner;1467368 wrote:I would have been even more scared when I was a 17 year old kid, not less because I thought I was invincible.

That could be a gender/sex thing. Even the most conservative/safest guys I grew up with did the most ridiculous, stupid thing imaginable that I couldn't even begin to try today.

Driving 90 miles per hour on rural roads, jumping off of 50 foot high coal tipples in the Ohio River, riding jetskis on the wake of barges on the Ohio River - all insanely dangerous and all something guys would do.

I can't imagine how infuriated I would be if my son did anything like that, but also I'd be hypocritical because I was the same way. In short, when raising boys realize when the testosterone kicks in the years between 15-21 (or so), raising a boy or young man is going to be very trying time.

Girls might be hateful/competitive post-puberty, but boys are just stupid.

Manhattan Buckeye;1467382 wrote:That could be a gender/sex thing. Even the most conservative/safest guys I grew up with did the most ridiculous, stupid thing imaginable that I couldn't even begin to try today.

Driving 90 miles per hour on rural roads, jumping off of 50 foot high coal tipples in the Ohio River, riding jetskis on the wake of barges on the Ohio River - all insanely dangerous and all something guys would do.

I can't imagine how infuriated I would be if my son did anything like that, but also I'd be hypocritical because I was the same way. In short, when raising boys realize when the testosterone kicks in the years between 15-21 (or so), raising a boy or young man is going to be very trying time.

Girls might be hateful/competitive post-puberty, but boys are just stupid.

I get that, and I actually did some stupid stuff when I was a teenager, too. None of the stuff you listed would have scared me back then. But a gun? That's not the same thing as a thrill ride on a jet ski. Obviously this is only my opinion, but I just find it very hard to believe that GZ actually flashed his gun at Martin and he decided to fight him anyway.

Fab4Runner;1467385 wrote:I get that, and I actually did some stupid stuff when I was a teenager, too. None of the stuff you listed would have scared me back then. But a gun? That's not the same thing as a thrill ride on a jet ski. Obviously this is only my opinion, but I just find it very hard to believe that GZ actually flashed his gun at Martin and he decided to fight him anyway.

It was just my thought of a possible scenario. The other thing that is plausible is that GZ and TM began to scuffle, and TM caught site of the gun (the defense said that when GZ showed his gun to the responding officer, he only had to lift his hand over his head and slightly move to one side and the gun was exposed). When TM saw the gun, perhaps that's when he started the "ground and pound" fighting because he felt that HIS life was in danger...almost like he was thinking, let me knock this fucker out so he can't get up and shoot me.

I've got the coverage on mute while I'm on a call for work. Saw the professor testifying via Skype.

It looks like just random people were hitting up the Skype username so that it would pop up on the screen. LOL!!

The medical examiner's testimony yesterday is worthless to me. She was given her 6 figure job by the woman who was the special prosecutor in this case. She's biased. She should not be allowed to give opinion of injuries by looking at pictures. To say they were not life threatening is pointless. The next punch could have been deadly, and O'Mara tried to ask that but the judge ruled in favor of the state when they objected.
Today, the black professor said the next punch could have been deadly, so you don't need life threatening injuries to be in fear for your life. And he is the state's witness. He said don't wait until you have life threatening injuries before you defend yourself. The defense turned him around for the jury in brilliant fashion.

The state got the judge to allow Zman's school records this morning before court. If that is relevant, the school records of Trayvon should be admitted. The judge allows the state to introduce evidence, then other evidence to impeach the first. (When they get to the Hannity SYG statement) That should not be admissible. If the defense introduced the first evidence, then it is. The state can't do both.

Raw Dawgin' it;1467315 wrote:Yeah but I don't go around claiming "racist!" over a stereotype. I'm sorry, should I feel bad for someone who 1) didn't want to be a witness for her friend 2) can't read and 3) can barely speak english? If it were a white woman on there with 5 kids, living in a trailer, and collecting welfare I'd make the joke too, but i wouldn't call people who made fun of her a racist.

I highly doubt that is the reason why Gblock called people closet racists. I even said how ridiculous Jeantel was as a witness. I think you're getting too much from TV lol.

IMO the judge has been extremely biased in her rulings, manners, and tones in favor of the state during this trial

sherm03;1467342 wrote:It may be illogical, but that's how I see it happening. In my mind, the exchange was a little different...
GZ: Hey...stop!
TM: Who are you?
GZ: (pulls back his coat to show his gun) That's who I am.
Fight ensues. GZ fires his weapon.

But we'll never know if that's how it happened.



If he wasn't looking to get into a fight...why follow the guy in the first place?

This honestly sounds completely laughable to me. I find it hard to believe you actually believe that is what happened.

GZ: I don't know you, but I got a gun

TM: I got two fists, let's do this.

Just sounds preposterous

What is up with this judge. Not allowing the past of TM into court but Zimmerman's is ok?

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara said Tuesday that if prosecutors start bringing up Zimmerman's past, the defense will dig into Martin's past, including fights. The judge had ruled previously that Martin's past fights, drug use and school records couldn't be mentioned in opening statements. "There is no relevance and the suggested relevance will be far more outweighed by the prejudice," O'Mara said of the evidence admitted Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-school-records-zimmerman-trial-132653623.html

Fab1b;1467479 wrote:What is up with this judge. Not allowing the past of TM into court but Zimmerman's is ok?

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-school-records-zimmerman-trial-132653623.html

She's clearly picked a side.

Last page made me realize sherm is a little out there

WebFire;1467523 wrote:She's clearly picked a side.

This has never happened! I'm appalled!

rmolin73;1467535 wrote:This has never happened ever! I'm appalled!

Human nature I guess.

Fab1b;1467479 wrote:What is up with this judge. Not allowing the past of TM into court but Zimmerman's is ok?

It has to do with relevancy, probative value and potential prejudice. I don't know what the "reason" for trying to bring in TM's past, but generally you can't use past actions to prove that someone acted in that particular way in this instance.

I haven't been paying great attention to this case, so I can't speak definitively since I don't know the arguments the defense made for trying to get that in.

On the other hand, it sounds like GZ's past that they are speaking about is to show he had a knowledge and how it affected his frame of mind, which is different.