The Zimmerman Trial: Justice for Trayvon! (Let's discuss it)

HE was already seeing a psychologist........

the prosecution better investigate this......or malpractice...period
 
Totally agree. I want the prosecutor to follow up with the physicians assistant and ask her this (since O'mara keeps showing the pictures of his injuries); "looking at these lacerations and Zimmerman's bloody face, can you tell who started the fight?"


That can't be proven. We know they fought and Zimmerman got his ass beat. The prosecution shouldn't focus on who was winning the fight anyway, they need to focus on Zimmerman following, perusing and initiating the fight leaving Trayvon to fight for his life from some paranoid loon.​
 
Last edited:
i missed the trial today but i see the racist ass devils on facebook going crazy over that white boys testimony that martin was on top

man black people we need to unite immediately, with the paula deen shit and trayvons tragedy these people will do anything to see us suffer

hell we're fighting each other and them...wake the fuck up!

this.....but it must be done financially
 
They are trying to make ole Pudge Nubbins out to be a Sta Puft marshmallow man. He was fuckin' 28 years old. He ain't feeling the effects of his lifestyle at this point, and if they wanna play that, then why have his ass eat 6 meals a day to get him to the chunky state that he's in now.

I swear, being on the lam had to have been far better for his ass that the wasted time he devoted to forking over cash on "How to get yo' ass whooped, MMA Style" classes for a year+.
 
Gotcha. Thanks. How were they able to bring in what his instructor said (if you recall)? His instructor didn't take the stand correct?


Prosecution was questioning one of the first couple witnesses and his MMA training came up. The defense mentioned that in their redirect but yeah I thought it was hearsay. There was no objection to it even though the instructor wasn't in court
 
They probably can't do much for that, because of doctor, patient confidentiality. So if he was seeing one for anger issues, I don't think the court could compel the doctor to speak on it. ...but I wish they would find out why G. Zimmerman was turned down when he previously applied to become a cop.



HE was already seeing a psychologist........

the prosecution better investigate this......or malpractice...period
 
Totally agree. I want the prosecutor to follow up with the physicians assistant and ask her this (since O'mara keeps showing the pictures of his injuries); "looking at these lacerations and Zimmerman's bloody face, can you tell who started the fight?"
:smh: damn he missed that question..
 
i missed the trial today but i see the racist ass devils on facebook going crazy over that white boys testimony that martin was on top

man black people we need to unite immediately, with the paula deen shit and trayvons tragedy these people will do anything to see us suffer

hell we're fighting each other and them...wake the fuck up!

cosign
 
Wouldn't matter, because for one thing, the question would still be in the juror's heads. That's a tool that the defense has used purposely already in this case. O'mara asked something knowing full well that it would be objected to successfully, but you can't get it out of the jurors head once it's out there.

Also, because O'mara had already asked her to speculate on what could have caused the injuries, the judge would have likely let the question go because the defense opened the door.


....and in an unrelated line of questioning. Now that they established that he was training in MMA, they need to also get it out there that a HUGE part of MMA is fighting while down on your back.

No he didn't. He didn't ask because it would be speculation.
 
Prosecution was questioning one of the first couple witnesses and his MMA training came up. The defense mentioned that in their redirect but yeah I thought it was hearsay. There was no objection to it even though the instructor wasn't in court
The prosecution have missed a ton of objections this week. I assume this was another example.

I think it was brought up in the defense's opening statement.
Opening statements are non testimonial. They don't fall within a hearsay exception.
 
You asked how it was brought up that the instructor said he was soft. I'm just saying that I think he brought that up in opening statements. I think it had to be brought up then, because they haven't questioned the instructor yet, and none of the witnesses so far were asked about it, but I do remember hearing the "soft" comment... so it had to be in opening statements.


Opening statements are non testimonial. They don't fall within a hearsay exception.
 
Wouldn't matter, because for one thing, the question would still be in the juror's head. That's a tool that the defense has used purposely already in this case. O'mara asked something knowing full well that it would be objected to successfully, but you can't get it out of the jurors head once it's out there.

Also, because O'mara had already asked her to speculate on what could have caused the injuries, the judge would have likely let the question go because the defense opened the door.

The difference is she examined him. So she is giving her professional opinion of his injuries based off of her examination of him. Her determining who started the fight based off of injuries is something she can not substantiate.
 
nah man, I think you're missing my point. I'm not looking for her to actually be able to answer it, and neither would the prosecutor. The goal would be either to get her to say "I can't answer that because there's no way I can tell from looking pictures"... or the defense would object and it would be upheld, but the jurors would have the question in their heads, to negate the defenses repeated statements (while questioning her) about Zimmerman "being attacked". More legal strategy than actual fact finding. Like I said, the defense has already done similar things this week and legal analysts were patting them on the back for it.

It's like I think the last question the prosecutor asked her (or one of the last ones). He said, can you tell me what kind of injuries a gun shot to the heart would cause? They objected right away, and the judge sustained the objection ...but the jury heard.

The difference is she examined him. So she is giving her professional opinion of his injuries based off of her examination of him. Her determining who started the fight based off of injuries is something she can not substantiate.
 
One fact that the prosecutor have not touch is that GZ had several altercations with law enforcement before killing martin, this altercations are on the record. It will prove that his temper and common sense where a ticking time bomb!
 
You asked how it was brought up that the instructor said he was soft. I'm just saying that I think he brought that up in opening statements. I think it had to be brought up then, because they haven't questioned the instructor yet, and none of the witnesses so far were asked about it, but I do remember hearing the "soft" comment... so it had to be in opening statements.
Gotcha. But I wasn't asking how it was brought up. I was asking how it was allowed in. It shouldn't have been based on what you and a1rim are telling me. That's the point im getting at. I noticed earlier in the week that the prosecution was missing quite a few objections and it seems as if they still are.

And to add to you point on him missing a question with the PA in regards to Zimmermans injuries... He also missed an opportunity during the 911 callers testimony who said Trayvon was on top. When the eyewitness spoke about the "tussling" and then stated he saw Trayvon on top he should have asked; "You noticed the pair were tussling initially correct? But you did not see the entire altercation from beginning correct? Nor can you say that Zimmerman did not start this physical confrontation correct? So its possible that Zimmerman started this altercation correct? Is it also possible that Zimmerman was on top at any point?"
 
They did bring that up at one point yesterday I believe. May have been Wednesday. They asked a witness if they knew he had got a restraining order against him and that he was arrested for fighting a law enforcement officer (DEA I think). The defense came back and asked the same withness if he/she knew that in the case with the female, they both got restraining orders against each other, and in the case of the fight, the charges were later dropped to a misdemeanor after he completed some class or some shit.



One fact that the prosecutor have not touch is that GZ had several altercations with law enforcement before killing martin, this altercations are on the record. It will prove that his temper and common sense where a ticking time bomb!
 
Oh ok, I see....

and yessss to your second point. :yes::yes:


Gotcha. But I wasn't asking how it was brought up. I was asking how it was allowed in. It shouldn't have been based on what you and a1rim are telling me. That's the point im getting at. I noticed earlier in the week that the prosecution was missing quite a few objections and it seems as if they still are.

And to add to you point on him missing a question with the PA in regards to Zimmermans injuries... He also missed an opportunity during the 911 callers testimony who said Trayvon was on top. When the eyewitness spoke about the "tussling" and then stated he saw Trayvon on top he should have asked; "You noticed the pair were tussling initially correct? But you did not see the entire altercation from beginning correct? Nor can you say that Zimmerman did not start this physical confrontation correct? So its possible that Zimmerman started this altercation correct? Is it also possible that Zimmerman was on top at any point?"
 
Question: Was Zimmerman covered in blood when they took him to jail? No? But he shot someone in the chest that was straddling over him... stop with the bullshit. Gravity is calling Zimmerman a liar
 
Question: Was Zimmerman covered in blood when they took him to jail? No? But he shot someone in the chest that was straddling over him... stop with the bullshit. Gravity is calling Zimmerman a liar
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. He shot Trayvon in the heart. And instead of dying immediately like most people would, Trayvon sat up, looked at Zimmerman, said "you got me", raised his hands in surrender, and rolled off landing face down and without spilling a drop of blood on himself or Zimmerman who was underneath him.
 
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. He shot Trayvon in the heart. And instead of dying immediately like most people would, Trayvon sat up, looked at Zimmerman, said "you got me", raised his hands in surrender, and rolled off landing face down and without spilling a drop of blood on himself or Zimmerman who was underneath him.

Damn Trayvon was the black boogeyman the CAC legends have prophesized about for a millenia
 
no matter if Trayvon was on top or not Zimmerman was told not to pursue. he didn't wait for the police to arrive. he wanted to take matters in his own hands. only he and Trayvon knows how the fight started.

I would bet my house. Zimmerman started it cause he knew he was armed and he felt cocky. he had on a long coat with a holster that fits inside the pocket of his paints.

Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman would have done as he was told

I got a question?
in Florida even if you have a permit to carry a weapon
can you carry a weapon while volunteering on a community watch?
 
Question: Was Zimmerman covered in blood when they took him to jail? No? But he shot someone in the chest that was straddling over him... stop with the bullshit. Gravity is calling Zimmerman a liar

yeah that is why I think he shot him at point blank range......
 
Back
Top