Trayvon Martin

There is a state of mind element to virtually every criminal charge. In this case, that state of mind is being of a depraved mind. Because that element must be satisfied for a conviction, every juror plays armchair psychologist. It isn't a tangent, it is one of the critical elements of the offense. Therefore, it goes to the heart of the case.

 

I don't care anymore. my brother who's a lawyer dropped the "it doesn't matter zimmerman didn't break the law" line on me yesterday. He said its just a stupid law designed to pull an idiot like zimmerman out of trouble.

sigh

 

Good to know there is some logic in the family, not driven by racial emotions.

 

Im driven by man code emotion. dont start something you cant handle emotion. yall are b**** code supporters but the law was made b****es like you and zimmerman

 

NOw why did you do that?

He had just conceded that his problem was really with the nature of law itself, less so than the argument about who technically "started" the fight, whether self defense was legally justified etc. Then you had to go & poke him with a stick, get him agitated again.

 

*more so than

 

Thanks i should have ignored it

 

so now you've been reduced to name calling.

not very mature

 

is the lil waysiss angry?

 

it looks that way, but you should ask him to be sure.

 

Yes. The starting point is GUILTY and innocence must be proven? Isn't that backwards?

 

A grown man instigating a situation against the advice of law enforcement and having to end it with deadly force all cause he was tired of some assholes he mistakenly associated with a teenager is the height of immaturity.

 

Are these listed somewhere? All I've read is the speculation that his head wasn't bleeding "enough." Some unresolved disputation about who was screaming. Some thought they saw GZ in top (which he could have been briefly) but the more concrete witness (on the 911 call) clearly saw TM on top.

 

Also not one single witness saw TM beating GZ's head into the ground. There isn't one.

 

does that mean it didn't happen? How do you explain the cuts to the back of the head?

 

That's a pretty grotesque, slanted summation of what happened.

 

Have you noticed that there are scant witnesses to anything in this case?

 

Yes. Have you noticed that GZ's story changed seemingly every time he talked to somebody, and he was caught in several lies? Maybe his part of the testimony about what happened is still believable. I don't know.

 

Otis tries to oversimplify things to fit his preconceived biases. Classic immature thinking.

 

Where is this detailed? You keep claiming and making a big deal out of it but I've seen nothing of it. I'm pretty sure that remembering details in a hand to hand fight that turns deadly is not a high priority at the time. It's a fast and furious time segment. What does not match the forensic evidence?