Travon Martin Trial

Problem being, the father said otherwise, and she was not called to merely testify over whose voice she believed it was, oh my no, there was something about apologizing and feeling remorseful etc etc.

As for Zimmerman grabbing Martin, problem being the evidence supports Zimmerman's version of events.

 

Problem being, the witness also testified he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman mounted in a MMA manner.

Which is why I've stuck with the view that Zimmerman's version is likely to be factual as to the physical confrontation portion, the controversy has always been whether Zimmerman should have been following him in the first place and if Martin reacted unreasonably.

 

Add in the injuries to Zimmerman as well and the conclusion is obvious to me

That has been what has stuck out to me in all of this, so far I've not seen evidence that Martin was not the aggressor or Zimmerman's version is untrue, he's been consistent with what he has said and cooperative with the police investigators.

The lesson in that is the classic atty advice to say nothing to investigators actually helped Zimmerman via ignoring it and cooperating with them.

 

It's not a theory, it's fact. Stringers Anecdotal evidence means ****. Just like when you were wrong on being so positive that ballistics weren't circumstantial evidence you're wrong about pot.

And LOL at your last sentence. Your posts are barely readable. You shouldn't talk about smarts.

 

Zimmerman's injuries and the witness testimony points to that conclusion.

Only evidence of Zimmerman's possible aggressive actions would be following Martin in the first place, however from there it points in the other direction, for example "if" Zimmerman was the aggressor, why would he have a pistol, then not have it drawn? Why wouldn't Martin have physical injuries from a confrontation if Zimmerman moved first?

 

another crap post. TM's friend is a r-tard liar. And there were marks on the side of GZ's head and face consistent with being grabbed.

 

Being on amphetamines when you kill someone is not anecdotal.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

And I don't see that as a controversy. If TM had a right to be there then so did GZ. Who grabbed/hit first is what matters. The whole "he shouldn't have followed him" crowd is as bad as the "he shouldn't have been looking like a hoodlum" crowd.

GZ had every bit of a right to be there as TM did. From what I can tell TM had every opportunity to tell GZ to piss off and walk away. It's what I do when people are snooping in my business.

 

How often are you followed?

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Well, if one applies a reasonable standard of action, not necessarily a strictly legal one, then Martin was correct to think a man, he did not know, following him late at night, was suspicious to say the least.

INOW, I can see their point, which means the confrontation then magnifies in importance, as both would then be acting reasonably, which is why this one comes down to the evidence and that points to Martin hitting Zimmerman first and mounting him.

All he would then know is a stranger, who may or may not have been up to no good, has attacked me and is now on top of me.

 

your experiences with pot and adderall is anecdotal.

I'll ask again, were you prescribed adderall? And if you knew anything about why adderall was prescribed you'd know that it's used to calm a person.

 

No, I won't provide you with a link. I know it's a fact. If you want to learn something look it up yourself. I'm usually on my iPad or iPhone too.

pot causes paranoia, anxiety, violent tendencies etc. That's a scientific fact.

 

Yes I've been prescribed. Mis-prescription of adderall is a serious problem, especially for adults. 90% of the people I know with prescriptions have no business taking it.

Stimulant-based drugs are very dangerous. Majority of adults with legitimate ADD are moved to a non-stimulant.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

So, in your medical opinion, 90% of those you know shouldn't be prescribed adderall? lol...OK.

Prescription drugs are misprescribed often. Antibiotics being the worst.

Your entire post has nothing to do with your assertion that GZ was prone to being more violent than TM because GZ was prescribed Adderall and TM smoked illegal drugs. NOTHING...

if you've got a point, please make one. I'd love to hear your (non anecdotal) proof that pot is great and adderall is bad.

 

look again

 

Its how you go 0/46 calling the cops.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

nope

 

As usual...another crap post that makes no sense.

 

I'm not saying anything is good or bad. Im saying one contains amphetamines. Amphetamines have an effect on someone. The fact that he was prescribed the amphetamines means that he was better off on them than he would be off of them. That doesn't change the reality that he has psychological problems, either way.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Problem being, the State has presented their case and did not state such a theory (AFAIK, I've not kept on top of this as do have other things to do), which means their case has rested.

Then again, in Kangarooville, nothing would really surprise me.

 

lol... I love the shill, hand-wringing by some here.

The misinformation and flat out ignorance in this thread is ridiculous.

There is no evidence which suggests that GZ put his hands on TM first.

There is evidence that shows TM was on top of GZ.

There is evidence that TM attacked GZ.

There is evidence that TM had THC in his body.

There is evidence that pot can cause anxiety and paranoia.

There is evidence that TM was violent.

There is evidence that shows GZ called the cops 46 prior times without incident.

There was a burglary tool found at the scene of the crime.

TM was found with burglary tools and jewelry at school. Jewelry that fit the description of jewelry that was stolen from a home robbery near TM's high school.

 

I'm a PA. My anecdotal experiences mean ****, also.

 

Yes you are. At least you tried to. You implied adderall=bad behavior and pot=good behavior. Did you not? and if you answer no, then what did your post imply?

"Amphetamines have an effect on someone?" Really? So does water and oxygen.

I thought you were implying that GZ was misprescribed the drug like "90% of your friends"?

I'd be hard pressed to find someone without some sort of "psychological problem". You yourself said you were prescribed adderall. Correct? When are you going to kill someone? I mean, it's gonna happen, right?

 

It wasn't the grammar or punctuation. It was the content.

 

Wasn't prescribed it because I needed it.

But when I got umbrella insurance they told me I could not own a gun and have the policy since I did have a prescription.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

The only thing that their evidence shows is that there is a reasonable doubt that TM was the aggressor.

If TM was on trial that would be enough to exonerate him...

In regards to GZ's guilt, all that argument does I'd show a possible theory... Doesn't prove that GZ is guilty... The reasonable doubt is still there...

From what I've seen to this point at least...

 

There's evidence GZ chased TM.

There's evidence GZ is more violent.

There's evidence GZ has lied in court.

There's evidence GZ has psychological problems.

There's evidence GZ has been aggressive.

There's evidence GZ was angry BEFORE the confrontation.

There's evidence that screwdrivers are used for things that aren't against the law.

There's no evidence linking this "burglary tool at the scene" with TM.