Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

You know he has to know that already. Can't imagine what makes folks like curdog tick. What kind of mind is slanted towards the attacking thug in a self defense scenario?

Yes,his contradictions are hard to keep up with.

I can just read sign better than some of you.

Now right there I thought we were finally gonna be able to meet at an agreement.



Until you got to right here and just blew it out of the water....




Surely you have been in a few fights, haven't you?

Do you think Zimmerman was in danger of being killed considering this punk kid SUPPOSEDLY hit him 30 or 40 times[again, depending on which GZ interview you take as gospel] and he never missed a day of work or was under the care of a doctor.

Fact is, I've been hurt worse on my eyeball and didn't even blink.

It depends on which one of GZ's recorded interviews you take as gospel. Does THIS ring a bell ?

" At this point, it was no longer MY gun, it became THE gun we fought over". [ I THINK it was in the Greta interview, but I'm not certain]

Why would the PA try and establish the fact that Martin's prints weren't on the gun if no claim had been made that he touched it?

Don't have cable/satellite so I haven't seen all the interviews.

I have to wonder why the prosecution didn't introduce that video to show a changing story. I've not seen anything that indicates ANY variation of Zimmerman's account.

There has not been any... CD is obviously trolling... or a dumbshit of JO proportion...

He chose the word "fought" to refer to what appeared to him a struggle between the two of them as to who could get a hold of the gun first. He said that his jacket, due to the struggle, was no longer over top his gun, and he felt Treyvon's hand sliding down his side as if to search for the weapon (the assumption being that he must have caught a glimpse of it in the low light). At that point, to Zimmerman, it became a contest for who would get it first. He termed this "fighting over the gun," but explained exactly what he meant. Fighting doesn't have to mean both parties had their hands on it. There's no contradiction, just different words used at different times to describe the same events, which is only normal when recounting something on many different occasions. The fact that state's prosecution is always going to use such variations in speech against you, however, is the reason you make one and only one statement about this sort of thing.

IF he testifies, you can bet you will see ALL his interviews. Over and over and over and..............

It seems to me as if just about ALL the potential FACT witnesses to the event were called by the State.

Putting forth a defense consisting primarily of EXPERT witnesses with the defendant watching and not testifying appears to me to be pretty risky.

Perhaps Judge issac or his intern can SHOW where I'm full of schitt, rather just "issuing a ruling" which has been the case thus far.

I haven't watched the proceedings, but was under the impression from the posts here that the Defense has not called any Wits yet...that these have all been Wits for the Prosecution.

The Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Travon illegally, for either a Murder Two or Manslaughter charge. Thus far from what I've seen, they've done nothing but raise further reasonable doubts.

You are correct in your assessment as far as just about everyone [including me] is concerned, with regard to the trial thus far. But the point I'm making is; "What now for the defense?"

There was a finite number of Fact witnesses available to lawyers for both sides. You know, of course, those are the folks that can testify to a relevant bit of information they gained thru their their five senses.

The State called a bunch of them to testify. And the Defense cross examined them. How many new witnesses are still available for the defense to call?

There obviously is a witness list, but I don't know if it is public.

That's why I was hoping one of the keen legal minds around this fire would enlighten us.

Once more, for the newcomers to this thread:

I have never believed this trial has ANY 2A implications, nor do I think it will have anymore
far-reaching legal ramifications than did the O J Simpson trial, which is ZERO.

Therefore, I really could not care less about the verdict from a personal standpoint. I can look at the facts with total objectivity and arrive at my own conclusions.

I offer them for purposes of discussion. Everyone had, and still has the options of agreeing, disagreeing, or ignoring them.

There are always gonna be the members too stupid to argue facts and too immature to refrain from posting.

There are always gonna be the members too stupid to argue facts and too immature to refrain from posting.

Perhaps Judge issac or his intern can SHOW where I'm full of schitt, rather just "issuing a ruling" which has been the case thus far.