Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the state attorney’s office, testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s contention that he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.
Gilbreath also said evidence does not back up parts of Zimmerman’s story, such as his claim that Martin was slamming his head against a sidewalk just before he pulled out his handgun and shot the teenager.
“That is not consistent with the evidence we found,” said Gilbreath, who did not provide details.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense.[/quote]
According to who? The police said that they couldn’t arrest him initially because they didn’t have probable cause to dispute his claim to self defense.[/quote]
Yeah, well, testy had a friend once.[/quote]
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense.[/quote]
According to who? The police said that they couldn’t arrest him initially because they didn’t have probable cause to dispute his claim to self defense.[/quote]
Yeah, well, testy had a friend once.[/quote]
guess that puts me one up on ya.[/quote]
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Speaking of friends, I’ve got to jet. Some dudes and a fairly regular piece of ass and her hen crew are meeting downtown in a bit.
It will be interesting to watch prosecutors attempt to prove Zimmerman guilty though.
Damn, Zimfuck is good. Fucking good. Criminal mind at his best.
The shit on that motherfucker’s head is practically spray paint. And you’re telling me it dried up before it reached the back of his neck? LMFAO!!
That doesn’t look like the result of a head bashing at all–much less a head bashing on concrete. It looks like nice straight razor edge like cuts. Shit, when I heard there were graphic pictures of Zimmfuck out there I expected to see some flesh oozing, brain candy shit bursting out of the ‘‘GASH’’!! Didn’t Papa and Bro Zimms, plus lawyers said his head was ‘‘broken’’. Hahaha!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if these were self-inflicted. Zimmerfuck is so nutty and so bent on covering his ass that I wouldn’t put anything past him.
And Lol @ 3 minutes after he committed the murder this picture was taken. Who took the picture? So are we to believe that he travelled with a photographer that night? Or was it one of the witnesses? LMFAO!! And why is Zimmerman on the phone in that pic if the police were in charge of the scene at that point? Damn, what a friendly bunch those guys were to him.
Or are we to believe that the first responders’ first duty when arriving at the scene ‘‘3 minutes after Trayvons murder’’ was to take a picture of Zimmerman’s head?
So where’s the other picture? The broken bleeding nose picture? … wait… it’ll come soon enough… Zimmfuck got it hidden and he’s just waiting for the right moment to… Shit, I just can’t… I just can’t… stop laughing… my abs hurt… lmfao!!
Damn, it took so long for this to come out, after all the stuff that’d been leaked to the media. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the pictures were taken on another date—once Zimmfuck realized it was about to go down and he needed to cover his racist ass.
Damn, Zimfuck is good. Fucking good. Criminal mind at his best.
The shit on that motherfucker’s head is practically spray paint. And you’re telling me it dried up before it reached the back of his neck? LMFAO!!
That doesn’t look like the result of a head bashing at all–much less a head bashing on concrete. It looks like nice straight razor edge like cuts. Shit, when I heard there were graphic pictures of Zimmfuck out there I expected to see some flesh oozing, brain candy shit bursting out of the ‘‘GASH’’!! Didn’t Papa and Bro Zimms, plus lawyers said his head was ‘‘broken’’. Hahaha!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if these were self-inflicted. Zimmerfuck is so nutty and so bent on covering his ass that I wouldn’t put anything past him.
And Lol @ 3 minutes after he committed the murder this picture was taken. Who took the picture? So are we to believe that he travelled with a photographer that night? Or was it one of the witnesses? LMFAO!! And why is Zimmerman on the phone in that pic if the police were in charge of the scene at that point? Damn, what a friendly bunch those guys were to him.
Or are we to believe that the first responders’ first duty when arriving at the scene ‘‘3 minutes after Trayvons murder’’ was to take a picture of Zimmerman’s head?
So where’s the other picture? The broken bleeding nose picture? … wait… it’ll come soon enough… Zimmfuck got it hidden and he’s just waiting for the right moment to… Shit, I just can’t… I just can’t… stop laughing… my abs hurt… lmfao!!
Damn, it took so long for this to come out, after all the stuff that’d been leaked to the media. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the pictures were taken on another date—once Zimmfuck realized it was about to go down and he needed to cover his racist ass.
[/quote]
Is it fun playing a character on internet forums? I’m genuinely curious.
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.
'(Alan) Dershowitz (told) Breitbart News that if the prosecutors (had) the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie.”
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, "We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it -
“I’ve had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It’s a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?”
Dershowitz added, “I’m not taking sides, but I’m insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules.”
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I don’t see him getting convicted, especially with all this bullshit going on before there is even a trial. [/quote]
Most likely correct. From the beginning I said I need all the information before I could make a determination in a case like this . And at every single turn the rush to judgement crowd is being proven wrong.
I’ve seen this so many times it’s almost comical .
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]
Stand your Ground immunity is decided in a pre-trial hearing and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the judge finds in favour of the motion he dismisses the charges. If not, the charges go ahead and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a higher standard than “a preponderance of evidence” - and the defendant can still use Stand your Ground as part of his defense. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong.
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]Yeah, “innocent until proven guilty” is a pretty complex ideal to grasp though.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I don’t see him getting convicted, especially with all this bullshit going on before there is even a trial. [/quote]
Most likely correct. From the beginning I said I need all the information before I could make a determination in a case like this . And at every single turn the rush to judgement crowd is being proven wrong.
I’ve seen this so many times it’s almost comical .[/quote]
I’ll be the first to admit I jumped to conclusions, even though I only made a post of two in the other threads. At this point it’s pretty clear that I was rash, and it’s even more clear that you can never make decisions based on media portrayal.
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]
Stand your Ground immunity is decided in a pre-trial hearing and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the judge finds in favour of the motion he dismisses the charges. If not, the charges go ahead and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a higher standard than “a preponderance of evidence” - and the defendant can still use Stand your Ground as part of his defense. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong.[/quote]
The prosecution has to prove guilt, but he has to prove it was self defense.
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
