New Trayvon Martin photos released into evidence

[Farley1324]

Post 1795, page 60...

Wow, devastating way of making up crap and lying I'm just not seeing.

He's extraordinarily hung up on the fact that dennis did not specifically state "imminent" in his statement.

Why, I don't know. I suspect it's because he is a troll who likes to argue, or 'play devil's advocate', as he puts it. That's why he danced around the bush being a smartass about hinting at it without just saying it for so long, and is still doing the same. Well, either that or he honestly believes that Zimmerman reasonably feared serious injury or death, but didn't reasonably fear imminent seriously injury or death.

Don't really know, don't really care.

I'm already halfway going back on my commitment of not feeding the troll by responding to you about him.

But the point is I never made anything up. Chalk that up as another bold face lie. That tactic is currently his strongest at pulling people in for endless, pointless argument that centers around him.

[jafomofo]

To be fair, not many people in the thread are on Martins side, so having at least one person to bash gives us somebody to talk about.

Jafomofo is just wrong, at least hooked tries to fight back.

What am I wrong about?

[Bucher15]

He's extraordinarily hung up on the fact that dennis did not specifically state "imminent" in his statement.

Why, I don't know. I suspect it's because he is a troll who likes to argue, or 'play devil's advocate', as he puts it. That's why he danced around the bush being a smartass about hinting at it without just saying it for so long, and is still doing the same. Well, either that or he honestly believes that Zimmerman reasonably feared serious injury or death, but didn't reasonably fear imminent seriously injury or death.

Don't really know, don't really care.

I'm already halfway going back on my commitment of not feeding the troll by responding to you about him.

But the point is I never made anything up. Chalk that up as another bold face lie. That tactic is currently his strongest at pulling people in for endless, pointless argument that centers around him.

Just look at his post history. He does this in every thread. It's getting comical.

[ODBM]

What am I wrong about?

Let's play a game. Wipe your slate clean and state, in one post, your best reasons for supporting your own opinion. Remember that speculation is a card that can be played by both sides of the argument.


And... go!

[jafomofo]

Nothing.

Really? Just off the top of my head you incorrectly asserted that he couldn't be convicted of a lesser charge and then ignored me like 5 times. You also asserted a few pages ago that we Didn't know if martin returned to his car after the dispatchers comments despite Zimmerman indicating at least 2x on tape that He did not.

So...nothing? are you lying or do you just have a really short memory

[bailey1106]

So it boils down to I like to argue with other people.

Thats the common denominator of all r/p posters

[Farley1324]

Really? Just off the top of my head you incorrectly asserted that he couldn't be convicted of a lesser charge and then ignored me like 5 times. You also asserted a few pages ago that we Didn't know if martin returned to his car after the dispatchers comments despite Zimmerman indicating at least 2x on tape that He did not.

So...nothing? are you lying or do you just have a really short memory

My understanding has been that it was second degree murder or not guilty. If I am wrong about that it isn't because I "made it up", it is because I jumped in to answer a random question and was wrong.

I miss a lot of things in threads like this, that doesn't mean I am ignoring anything. This thread, and others, are extremely active and fast. I simply am unable and unwilling to keep up with it constantly, all day. I miss sections of it all over the place, sometimes for 10-15 pages at a time, sometimes for a page or two. Whatever.

I said we didn't know if Zimmerman headed towards his car after he said "ok".

The phrase 'returned to his car' was not used, as we know he did not actually return to his car. He wouldn't have been attacked on the sidewalk if he had done so.

[ElMariachi]

Day 3 review


Jane Surdyka

Sudyka lived in the row of townhouses at just above the upper part of the “T” formed by the dog walk. Her testimony was largely centered on the 16 minute long 911 call she made that night

More objectively, however, was testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–”pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

She testified that it was while she was on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court–yes, every single 16 minutes of it–and no shot was audible.

She testified that it was while she was on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court–yes, every single 16 minutes of it–and no shot was audible.

She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.

Interestingly, Sudyka also stated several times that the rainfall at the time was quite heavy–’buckets of rain” was the phrase she used, so intense that she needed to close a window to prevent rain from entering her home.

This observation favors the defense, which has suggested that the rain may have washed away the traces of blood that several witnesses have said was not evident at the scene. Indeed, so damaging were these statements to the State that Mr. de la Rionda rose on re-direct for the sole purpose of inducing Sudyka to make corrective statements downplaying the intensity of the rainfall. It also supports the defense’s contention that Zimmerman was exercising reasonable judgment in thinking it suspicious that Martin was out walking in the rain.


Surdyka: "Who would be out there walking dog in pouring rain

Surdyka also was insistent that she had heard two voices, one a loud, aggressive, confrontational, dominating voice and the other a softer, meeker voice. She attributed the confrontational voice to Zimmerman and the meeker voice to the “boy,” Martin. It emerged on cross, however that she had never previously heard either Zimmerman or Martin’s voice, and was making her assignment based on assumptions of how they might sound, not on personal knowledge.

Sudyka: Well, just the one time on Anderson Cooper, but only on condition that I not be named or identified.

West: Weren’t you also on television another time?

Sudyka: Well, yes, I was videotaped by another journalist.

West: And that was played on TV several times.

Sudyka: I only saw it once.

West: So you were taped, and you saw yourself on TV, that second time?

Sudyka: Yes.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...tes-witnesses/

[tsbalr120]

Curious as to why so many people ITT seem so personally tied to this case...it's like your team is in the super bowl x 1000....

Is it the race angle (either way) that peaks your interest?

I'm personally hoping zimmerman is innocent to prove no matter how much the media and community organizers want to burn someone at the stake, they still get a fair trial.

[tsbalr120]

To be fair, not many people in the thread are on Martins side, so having at least one person to bash gives us somebody to talk about.

Jafomofo is just wrong, at least hooked tries to fight back.

Agreed. I actually like hook's input. I might disagree but he's not uneducated or too emotional on the case.

[jafomofo]

My understanding has been that it was second degree murder or not guilty. If I am wrong about that it isn't because I "made it up", it is because I jumped in to answer a random question and was wrong.

So when you make a factual assertion that is incorrect you are just wrong but when hooked or someone else does it they are lying or trolling or whatever? I think you see my point. Nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you can admit it but when you refuse to address it repeatedly and just pretend it didn't happen then call out other people on similar issues it seems rather hypocritical doesn't it?

I miss a lot of things in threads like this, that doesn't mean I am ignoring anything. This thread, and others, are extremely active and fast. I simply am unable and unwilling to keep up with it constantly, all day. I miss sections of it all over the place, sometimes for 10-15 pages at a time, sometimes for a page or two. Whatever.

I posted it in 2 threads and in posts that you responded to but ok if you just missed it thats fine. I'm suspect though.

I said we didn't know if Zimmerman headed towards his car after he said "ok".

The phrase 'returned to his car' was not used, as we know he did not actually return to his car. He wouldn't have been attacked on the sidewalk if he had done so.

Argue semantics if you wish but that doesn't change that zimmerman made 2 statements within 24 hours of the incident specifically that he continued to follow martin or at least head down the path where he last saw him after the exchange with the dispatcher so your statement is still factually incorrect and ...made up. I'm quite sure I could dig up others if I cared to do so.

[Dragger]

I'm personally hoping zimmerman is innocent to prove no matter how much the media and community organizers want to burn someone at the stake, they still get a fair trial.

I second that. MSM made false claims and told flat out lies, showed doctored pics of a 13 year-old Martin and made the bloody pic of Zimmerman black and white so you couldn't see the blood and made him appear white so people like KRANE, hook4phonics, and jafomofo would instantly declare him the evil white devil.

[ElMariachi]

Day 3

Jeannee Manaloo

Manaloo’s key testimony on direct was her identification of Zimmerman as the man who was on top during the struggle on the ground, contrary to all other evidence discussed so far in this case. She based this perception on the differing size of the two people, saying that it was the larger person who was on top. Obviously, if correct, this testimony is profoundly inconsistent with the defense’s theory of the case.

We all know, of course, that many of the photos distributed after the event show Martin as a much younger person than the 17-year-old, 6-foot-plus young man he was at the time of his death. O’Mara is midway through the process of pinning down which pictures she may have used for her assessment. Obviously pictures that showed only a portion of Martin’s body, such as just his face, and/or that showed him when much younger would result in a misleading perception on Manaloo’s part, effectively destroying the credibility of her testimony.

O’Mara continued his questioning along these lines, at first before the jury had been brought into the courtroom from the recess. He held up a variety of pictures and asked Manaloo if she had used her knowledge of that particular picture in coming to her determination of the size of the two men. The ones she acknowledged having used for that purpose were set aside and used in questioning before the jury.

Among these were the “hoodie” picture, two “football” pictures, and the Hollister picture. For each of them Manaloo acknowledged that Martin appeared younger in the picture–sometimes a great deal younger–than his 17 years of age at the time of his death

O’Mara also asked her about earlier statements in which she said that the person who was on top in the fight on the ground was the person she later saw talking with her husband after the shooting. Obviously the person talking to her husband was Zimmerman, so this would support her contention that it was Zimmerman on top during the struggle.

In fact, asked O’Mara, you’re not certain as you sit here today who was where during that altercation, are you? She acknowledged that she was not. West had no more questions.

Isn’t it true, de la Rionda demanded, that on March 26 I took a sworn statement and I asked you if you could identify either person, and you said Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size? Isn’t also true that in your deposition by West that you said you could identify Zimmerman because you had seen his photo on TV and that based on his size it was Zimmerman on top?

Manaloo equivocated. At that time, she said, I don’t know who they are, I know one is down and one is up.

But Martin never got up after he was shot? asked de la Rionda. No, she answered.

Manaloo: How would you describe the physical of the guy on top or the guy on the bottom.

O’Mara: OK, and what was your answer?

Manaloo: I know after seeing the TV of what’s happening. Then Mr. de la Rionda said OK, and I said comparing the pictures, I think Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size.

O’Mara: But again, not because you have that independent thought but only because you compared the pictures we just talked about, right?

Manaloo: Yes.

O’Mara: Your only basis for this is not because you though the was on top because he was on top, but only because of the comaprison with the picutre of a 12 year old child.

Manaloo: Yes.

[Farley1324]

So when you make a factual assertion that is incorrect you are just wrong

If he can be convicted of lesser charges that is what happened, yes.

but when hooked does it they are lying or trolling or whatever? I think you see my point. Nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you can admit it but when you refuse to address it repeatedly and just pretend it didn't happen then call out other people on similar issues it seems rather hypocritical doesn't it?

Apples to oranges and you know it.

I posted it in 2 threads and in posts that you responded to but ok if you just missed it thats fine. I'm suspect though.

Post the link again?

Argue semantics if you wish but that doesn't change that zimmerman made 2 statements within 24 hours of the incident specifically that he continued to follow martin or at least head down the path where he last saw him after the exchange with the dispatcher so your statement is still factually incorrect and ...made up. I'm quite sure I could dig up others if I cared to do so.

Semantics: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Really? Made up? You sure about that?

I made up that I didn't know something?

okay.jpg

[Farley1324]

Looking into it more it appears that as it stands the jury can't just convict Zimmerman of lesser charges, the prosecution would have to request that the judge instruct the jurors on being able to go with a lesser charge, AND the judge would have to decide to allow that and follow through with it, and I'm not yet seeing anything that indicates this will necessarily happen.

jafomofo, I'm waiting for that link I supposedly ignored 5 times that shows that Z can be found guilty of lesser charges

[ElMariachi]

Looking into it more it appears that as it stands the jury can't just convict Zimmerman of lesser charges, the prosecution would have to request that the judge instruct the jurors on being able to go with a lesser charge, AND the judge would have to decide to allow that and follow through with it, and I'm not yet seeing anything that indicates this will necessarily happen.

jafomofo, I'm waiting for that link I supposedly ignored 5 times that shows that Z can be found guilty of lesser charges

As far as I know, Zimmerman was charged with Murder two and "lesser included offenses", one of these is involuntary manslaughter. From everything I've read, in Florida, every murder two charge automatically leaves manslaughter on the table as a lesser offense.

The key distinction between the two is that the second degree murder charge requires a finding that Zimmerman killed Trayvon while engaging in an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Take that element away, and you still have the lesser included offense of manslaughter, so both charges are still theoretically on the table.

I haven't seen any reason why the jury wouldn't be permitted to find Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. Based on what I've seen thus far, the prosecution will have an awfully difficult time proving that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind", meaning he intended to kill Trayvon, period. I think the compromise could end up being involuntary manslaughter with Zimmerman serving very little time as a result.

[hooked4life]

You're wrong, it's okay, and I'll show you how too.

If I pull a knife on you and lunge at you, all you have is a FEAR of death or great bodily harm, you can justifiably shoot me in self defense without me EVER touching you. It can't be something made up like you suggested, it has to be a reasonable fear, period.

You made a statement of law - I showed you where you were wrong. There is no debate here. You.are.wrong. Period.

As was Farley.

[Bushmaster]

BTW, did I ever tell you the one about the guy that used to beat people up and take their money. He went on to become the chief of security at a very affluent condominium complex with a near 20 year no robbery record. What a difference a day make eh?

Somebody should have shot his ass too.

Seriously, is that supposed to fuking impress anybody?

And former senator Alan Simpson? He admitted being a roughen and getting into fights at the drop of a hat in his youth but look what he became. Should someone have shot him?

We're not talking about just getting into fights. You were specifically talking about somebody who used to "beat people up and take their money." Your exact words. And to that I will tell you again that yes, somebody should have shot him too. Fuk him and the horse he rode in on. And while we're at it, fuk you for pulling such a stupid example out of your ass.

Swear to god Krane, I thought voodoo and the CTards were bad to hammer square pegs into round holes, but they have NO-THING on you. There's 70+ pages of this very discussion to prove it too.

[Farley1324]

We're not talking about just getting into fights. You were specifically talking about somebody who used to "beat people up and take their money." Your exact words. And to that I will tell you again that yes, somebody should have shot him too. Fuk him and the horse he rode in on. And while we're at it, fuk you for pulling such a stupid example out of your ass.

Swear to god Krane, I thought voodoo and the CTards were bad to hammer square pegs into round holes, but they have NO-THING on you. There's 70+ pages of this very discussion to prove it too.

Apparently strong arm robbery, assault, and battery are just regular things everyday people do and they should not be punished or held accountable, especially if they are teenagers when they do it.

[Bushmaster]

Apparently strong arm robbery, assault, and battery are just regular things everyday people do and they should not be punished or held accountable, especially if they are teenagers when they do it.

Boys will be boys...

[Dragger]

Apparently strong arm robbery, assault, and battery are just regular things everyday people do and they should not be punished or held accountable, especially if they are teenagers when they do it.

Sad thing is that's what he actually claims. Just normal teen behavior. Maybe him and his people are all just thug wannabe's and that's why he supports Martin so hard.

[hooked4life]

You claim for 70 pages you do not support Martin, yet every time I mention "Martin Supporters", you immediately jump up and respond.

How about replying to post #2156

[DennisR1977]

You made a statement of law - I showed you where you were wrong. There is no debate here. You.are.wrong. Period.

As was Farley.

No.We.Arent.But.You.Definitely.Are.Period......

[hooked4life]

No.We.Arent.But.You.Definitely.Are.Period......

You're an odd one. I literally quoted the law to you where you CLEARLY left out an important word and you seem to think there is a way to argue you're not wrong. It's pretty weird brah.

[DasPhilosopher]

soo many gravediggers on old threads.

[Dragger]

How about replying to post #2156

I did.

How about responding to the fact that you claim you went to law school but never said anything about passing it?

Or the fact that you claim to know all about self-defense laws... but you've misspelled "self defense" this whole thread until I corrected you.

Or the fact that you claim you are NOT a Martin supporter and you are completely neutral... yet all you've done in this whole thread is support Martin and remained biased towards him. Every time I make a statement to "Martin Supporters" you immediately respond.

[hooked4life]

I did.

How about responding to the fact that you claim you went to law school but never said anything about passing it?

Or the fact that you claim to know all about self-defense laws... but you've misspelled "self defense" this whole thread until I corrected you.

Or the fact that you claim you are NOT a Martin supporter and you are completely neutral... yet all you've done in this whole thread is support Martin and remained biased towards him. Every time I make a statement to "Martin Supporters" you immediately respond.

Ah, my mistake, 2155. I made two replies to you, you answered one. I directly asked you a question in one. Could you reply to it?

My creds have nothing to do with anything here. Withdraw anything I've ever said, or anything anyone thinks I've said, re: being an attorney. I don't care.

[metroins]

I did.

How about responding to the fact that you claim you went to law school but never said anything about passing it?

Or the fact that you claim to know all about self-defense laws... but you've misspelled "self defense" this whole thread until I corrected you.

Or the fact that you claim you are NOT a Martin supporter and you are completely neutral... yet all you've done in this whole thread is support Martin and remained biased towards him. Every time I make a statement to "Martin Supporters" you immediately respond.

I too was extremely intrigued when hooked said he went to law school but never completed.

What happened?

[DennisR1977]

You're an odd one. I literally quoted the law to you where you CLEARLY left out an important word and you seem to think there is a way to argue you're not wrong. It's pretty weird brah.

I'm not wrong, you clearly don't know the meaning of the word imminent, or the meaning of "or".

[hooked4life]

I too was extremely intrigued when hooked said he went to law school but never completed.

Wo wooo - I don't think I said that.