The jury of me has much lower standards for judicial procedures than the American judicial system, but thankfully the punishment is much more forgiving (an internet post saying GZ should go to jail if found guilty of certain actions is probably one of his least worries.) I have an issue with the law itself, but if the jury interprets that within those laws, GZ cannot be held legally responsible, I'll just let it go. You win some and you lose some. It's the curse and blessing of democracy.
No, he was very clear... "I just think he should be locked up for a pretty long time, if it can be proved that what he did was not in reasonable self-defense. Again, this will be discussed in court and decided by a jury.
When are all of these documents supposed to be released? The ones the judge ordered be released like 1 or 2 weeks ago. I thought they would have made it to this thread by now, they must still be waiting release.
Actually I never smoke pot because I hate to cough...but I guess this lets you get your anti-pot narrative in with your GZ fellatio...since those are the two things you talk about on this board. Your story requires the belief that you can stalk an innocent person while armed....attempt to set the police on them for the crime of walking while black and when the police don't respond fast enough to suit your paranoia/batman complex confront them...then if they lay a finger on your dainty, dainty Adam 12 *** you can murder them in cold blood because YOU feel threatened. Keep bobbin' GZ's knob...maybe his website is takin' donations...you can send "him" the money you save on not buying pot...cause you are such a grownup and all.
I have actually met you more than once in person before. Since you've been such a douche here, I'm not going to say who I am. I had higher hopes for you because I know deep down you're a good dude. I'm pretty sure you had a great deal of respect for me as well. Your response here assumes a lot of things that known facts can't support. No facts support that GZ was stalking TM let alone because he was black or that GZ confronted TM. That's just the crusader for the underdog in you. I'm not planning on servicing GZ or sending him money. It's just utter bull**** that people can't open their eyes and see that the media manipulated them day 1, they took a stand based on that and as things come out they look foolish now. Their pride has them writing the drama queen conspiracy theory bull**** you just wrote.
Does anybody else find it incredibly funny that the one person who has steadily cried for facts throughout this is the one quickest to make-up events?
In general, I think people are a lot more douchier on the internet then they are in life. I wouldn't really let anything on here affect my judgement of how willing I'd be to have a beer with the individual in question (though excessive use of emoticons tends to be a bad warning sign).
Yes, that is a minor cut medically speaking, as evidence by where it is on the body compared to how much bleeding is present but mostly by what type of treatment was required- a bandaid. What level of injury are you trying to classify that as?
O.k I will apologize for making this personal....but my problem is.....One dude had a gun...that same dude pushed for a conflict....Likely that conflict didn't go his way...so he ended the life of the other combatant...what am I missing that is important.
Other evidence indicates that TM was not doing that, and was that GZ was on top of him, and shot him.
An injury indicative of blunt trauma, perhaps concrete? But that is not one small cut. You can say whatever you like, but you know that isn't the cut you were portraying it to be. I find it very odd that so many people here are saying those of us who are skeptical to convict GZ of murder are creating ridiculous fictitious to fit our narratives. That is bs and you all know it. The defense has a legitimate argument. You don't have to believe them, it's all pretty much circumstantial, but they DO have an argument. I don't pretend to be better than people here, I do try not to insult anyone other than jo mama or tinman, so I am sorry to say this...you're a friggin moron if you do not see that the defense has a legitimate argument that can not be disproved by any factual evidence available to us. If you are denying that, than you are no longer an impartial judge of this case, and you should excuse yourself from this thread. Personally, I want it to come out in court that GZ is guilty. I don't mean that I want a guilty conviction, I want evidence that comes out to prove he is guilty. I don't like one bit that a kid lost his life that night, but I respect our laws, no matter how backwards they seem in certain instances. It is important to remember "stand your ground" laws have been beneficial. There are just certain cases that the statute becomes murky and it is abused.
GZ didn't push for a conflict he pushed for the Police to investigate someone he thought was acting suspiciously. That's what Neighborhood Watch people do.
No, those cuts are not indicative of blunt force trauma, whatsoever. They are certainly not indicative that he was "being beaten within an inch of his life" as I initially responded to. Why don't you go ahead and explain to me how these cuts, as pictured, are as bad as you say they are. I have explained my reasons why they are not bad, please respond in kind. You have no idea what your are talking about in terms of the severity of that injury, that has become clear, and you are the one coming off as biased in this conversation.
LOL, not at all. I see more than one minor cut. It seems to be what I would expect someone's head to look after being slammed into the concrete multiple times from a short distance. From an inch of his life? I don't think I said that, but if I did it's clear that he wasn't. No one needs a pic to tell them that, he didn't go to the hospital. Rodney King, he was beaten within an inch of his life, this is nowhere near as severe. However, put yourself in the position and it is very easy to imagine that GZ could have feared for his life. Like I said if you can not see that you blind as a friggin bat dude. You don't have to agree or believe it to not acknowledge that there is a reasonable defense here. If you were putting your money on it, what would say the jury finds the defendant?
What evidence indicates GZ was on top of TM? What evidence even indicates TM was on top of GZ? I haven't seen anything to prove either way. Does no one see my points? You can not prove he is innocent, but you can not prove he is guilty. In Florida the STATE has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ deliberately shot TM, and that it wasn't in self-defense. Through all of your circumstantial evidence you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was not in fear of his life, and that he did not therefore shoot TM to save himself. You think that his wounds aren't severe enough? The defense will eat that **** up. His wounds aren't indicative of being beaten within an inch of your life. It would take a blind fool to admit such a thing. They do however suggest that GZ's scenario involving his head being hit multiple times against the concrete is possible.
Listen to yourself. Have you heard me take a side in our conversation? I'm using medical reasoning to tell you about the wound, you're going off of what you think something should look like, but I'm blind as a bat? As far as the case goes, I think he will be found guilty.
Different witnesses have made different claims. I'm not even saying which witness is accurate, or that at different times maybe a different person was on top of the other. I'm just saying for people to claim that all the evidence suggests one thing, are ignoring other evidence. GZ has to do more than just show he feared for his life. Merely fearing for your life isn't enough to kill someone. That was my understanding, anyway. GZ's scenario is possible, but if anyone is going to buy that scenario, they have to discount the testimony of other evidence, and witnesses. If someone wants to make that decision they are free to do that, but they shouldn't pretend like they are only looking at the evidence when they are only looking at part of the evidence.
