Much of it is inadmissable in front of the jury anyway unless it is relevant to the case, which most of the stuff you bring up is not relevant.>>
Much of it is inadmissable in front of the jury anyway unless it is relevant to the case, which most of the stuff you bring up is not relevant.>>
Much of it is inadmissable in front of the jury anyway unless it is relevant to the case, which most of the stuff you bring up is not relevant.>>
originally posted by moneySRH
Cuts to the back of Zimmerman’s head, mean nothing cuz Martin was standing his ground in self-defense.
What was he standing his ground from? Where are the bruises on Trayvons body or anything that suggests that Zimmerman physically attacked him?
Do you even know what stand your ground means or better yet simple self defense?
Hint: You dont need to defend yourself if a person isn't trying to assualt you.
Again: Where is the evidence that Zimmerman had intended to or actually did inflict injury or assault on Trayvon?
originally posted by moneySRH
Cuts to the back of Zimmerman’s head, mean nothing cuz Martin was standing his ground in self-defense.
What was he standing his ground from? Where are the bruises on Trayvons body or anything that suggests that Zimmerman physically attacked him?
Do you even know what stand your ground means or better yet simple self defense?
Hint: You dont need to defend yourself if a person isn't trying to assualt you.
Again: Where is the evidence that Zimmerman had intended to or actually did inflict injury or assault on Trayvon?
Totallity of the circumstances
...Probable cause and reasonable cause are judged by a totality of the circumstances standard. That means you have to take all the facts into consideration and weigh them.
Totallity of the circumstances
...Probable cause and reasonable cause are judged by a totality of the circumstances standard. That means you have to take all the facts into consideration and weigh them.
<
Much of it is inadmissable in front of the jury anyway unless it is relevant to the case, which most of the stuff you bring up is not relevant.>>
As he is claiming self-defense, his character, veracity, and prior bad acts that would be in accordance with 404(b) would absolutely be admissible in this case.
<
Much of it is inadmissable in front of the jury anyway unless it is relevant to the case, which most of the stuff you bring up is not relevant.>>
As he is claiming self-defense, his character, veracity, and prior bad acts that would be in accordance with 404(b) would absolutely be admissible in this case.
These are your so-called credible witnesses. You should have done research on those witnesses you believe in so much. They all changed their stories.
Cuts to the back of Zimmerman’s head, mean nothing cuz Martin was standing his ground in self-defense.
Dumbass? Witness "Joe" who was the one that saw some of the fight has always maintained that Trayvon was on top. He didn't have his contacts out like the other one who said she was now sure that Zimmerman was on top. Before, she couldn't be sure, but all the sudden after seeing poor little 12 year old Trayvons cute picture on TV now changes her story because she can't fathom that cute little Trayvon throwing punches or slamming someones melon into the sidewalk.
You're about as gullable as they get. Sit down and shut up.
These are your so-called credible witnesses. You should have done research on those witnesses you believe in so much. They all changed their stories.
Cuts to the back of Zimmerman’s head, mean nothing cuz Martin was standing his ground in self-defense.
Dumbass? Witness "Joe" who was the one that saw some of the fight has always maintained that Trayvon was on top. He didn't have his contacts out like the other one who said she was now sure that Zimmerman was on top. Before, she couldn't be sure, but all the sudden after seeing poor little 12 year old Trayvons cute picture on TV now changes her story because she can't fathom that cute little Trayvon throwing punches or slamming someones melon into the sidewalk.
You're about as gullable as they get. Sit down and shut up.
Witness 2 had taken her contacts out so she is pretty much unreliable Except for the stuff that is corroborrated by other witnesses.
Witness 12 changed her story after she saw the cute little pictures of Trayvon so she is unreliable.
Witness 6 "John" is pretty reliable but it is curious why he changed his story from not knowing for sure who was screaming. He never changed the part about Zimmerman being on the bottom though. Discrediting witness 12 further.
Witness 13 statements has little bearing on what happened because Zimmerman was likely in that dream world state or a state of mental shock or possibly even medical shock as we know it.
All these things you have to consider and since you obviously hate Zimmerman you clearly cannot see this case objectively.
31 fights in a lifetime is more than avg by far moneysrh, seems to me that only an out of touch person or imbisil could find themself having been in that many fights in a lifetime let alone before you hit 32.
I've been in maybe 4 fights and none since 10th grade when my shoulders broadened. Most people are likely in that same ballpark.
So in summary pumkin, since you clearly cannot be objective about this, why not leave this debate for those that can.
Oh, since you have been in 31 fights I'm sure you know what I mean about that dream world state of mind I mentioned earlier.
31 fights, jeesh, shit man thats alot of fights, that may tell us alot about your charactor and lack of ability to rationalize.
Witness 2 had taken her contacts out so she is pretty much unreliable Except for the stuff that is corroborrated by other witnesses.
Witness 12 changed her story after she saw the cute little pictures of Trayvon so she is unreliable.
Witness 6 "John" is pretty reliable but it is curious why he changed his story from not knowing for sure who was screaming. He never changed the part about Zimmerman being on the bottom though. Discrediting witness 12 further.
Witness 13 statements has little bearing on what happened because Zimmerman was likely in that dream world state or a state of mental shock or possibly even medical shock as we know it.
All these things you have to consider and since you obviously hate Zimmerman you clearly cannot see this case objectively.
31 fights in a lifetime is more than avg by far moneysrh, seems to me that only an out of touch person or imbisil could find themself having been in that many fights in a lifetime let alone before you hit 32.
I've been in maybe 4 fights and none since 10th grade when my shoulders broadened. Most people are likely in that same ballpark.
So in summary pumkin, since you clearly cannot be objective about this, why not leave this debate for those that can.
Oh, since you have been in 31 fights I'm sure you know what I mean about that dream world state of mind I mentioned earlier.
31 fights, jeesh, shit man thats alot of fights, that may tell us alot about your charactor and lack of ability to rationalize.
DL36
Nice to see you NOT post that garbage about OJ/Sandusky for the umpteenth time. Perhaps you're out of touch as well since you never even knew you'd done it until I pointed it out to you.
Or perhaps you're out of touch because you simply post little else than comments on the commentors.
DL36
Nice to see you NOT post that garbage about OJ/Sandusky for the umpteenth time. Perhaps you're out of touch as well since you never even knew you'd done it until I pointed it out to you.
Or perhaps you're out of touch because you simply post little else than comments on the commentors.
It is beyond laughable to watch you talk about objectivity, yet summarily discount every possible argument that is contrary to your opinion.
My position on this matter is pretty well known. Zimmerman may very well be innocent and I do not agree that he should have had his bail revoked. And Zimmerman may also be guilty as well. Th evidence simply is not clearcut either way, although the law clearly favors the argument that the State will have the burden of showing it was not self-defense.
But to watch you criticize others for their lack of objectivity is hysterical.
It is beyond laughable to watch you talk about objectivity, yet summarily discount every possible argument that is contrary to your opinion.
My position on this matter is pretty well known. Zimmerman may very well be innocent and I do not agree that he should have had his bail revoked. And Zimmerman may also be guilty as well. Th evidence simply is not clearcut either way, although the law clearly favors the argument that the State will have the burden of showing it was not self-defense.
But to watch you criticize others for their lack of objectivity is hysterical.
See post #160 for objectivity. Then explain to dl36 and others what it means.
-2300 dl36 will post very little besides comments about the commentors in the next month/year.
See post #160 for objectivity. Then explain to dl36 and others what it means.
-2300 dl36 will post very little besides comments about the commentors in the next month/year.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.