Zimmerman - Self Defense Class or Benching 500 an Up? whats next?

[Jack T. Cross]

As a note to the side, we can't forget that it was revealed that Zimmerman WAS in fact a very deceptive person when it came to the PayPal money.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

[Jack T. Cross]

To recap: Fat boy got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.

I think that's how it'll end up looking.

[SLYY]

so if your actions lead a reasonable person to think that there is a very good likelihood that you are going to cause them physical harm...you don't think this "equates" to provoking them to use force against you? lol

Correct.  Your statement is not a blanket statement.  However, this is my specific quote:

Moreover, Trayvon's reasonable belief that his safety is in danger does not equate to Zimmerman actually and initially provoking the use of force against himself.  

You must be able to comprehend what I write in order to have an educated conversation with me (or anyone for that matter).  Until you understand why your above statement is not accurate, you will not being to engage in an educated legal discussion.  Thus far, my statements are going way above your head and it is clearly frustrating you.  You do not understand the law and how it operates.

yes saying in the 911 transcript that he thought trayvon looked late teens and then saying under oath that he believed trayvon was a little bit younger than himself at 28, is a clear contradiction, it matters not the relevance of this detail, it suggests zimmerman is unreliable and as you know there are other contradictions and inconsistencies.

It is evident you do not understand the word "impeach" and the way attorney's use it strategically with regard to witnesses in the court of law.

oh and can i ask why you made up that nonsense about the autopsy showing that trayvon's hands were covered in blood and his knuckles were damaged, when in reality it said he had a single small abrasion to one finger?...

This is evidence that Trayvon used his fists on Zimmerman's face.  Nothing more.  "A single small abrasion to one finger" is all the evidence needed to prove that point.

[SLYY]

You're not being specific.

I will not do all of your work for you.  Look back at the comments you made and you will know specifically what I am referring to as "fluff" and therefore not key facts, that link with any statutory elements involved in this case.

[Jack T. Cross]

I will not do all of your work for you.  Look back at the comments you made and you will know specifically what I am referring to as "fluff" and therefore not key facts, that link with any statutory elements involved in this case.

So this is how you react when you're cornered.  Interesting.

[SLYY]

So this is how you react when you're cornered.  Interesting.

Your inability to read and comprehend the posts that I have written in direct response to you, correlates strongly with your understanding and comprehension of this case.

So you think you may have reason to believe that a jury won't be allowed to hear or to consider the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.  Fair enough.

A competent jury will link the key facts to the statutory elements.  Everything else is mere fluff.

Please be specific, relative to the words Zimmerman used leading up to the unseen encounter.

In layman's terms, it is mere fluff.

You're not being specific.

I will not do all of your work for you.  (due to you being inept, I did your work for you, now you can see the comment you made that we have been discussing) Look back at the comments you made and you will know specifically what I am referring to as "fluff" and therefore not key facts, that link with any statutory elements involved in this case.

[Conker]

Correct.  However, and this is my quote:

You must be able to comprehend what I write in order to have an educated conversation with me (or anyone for that matter).  Thus far, my statements are going way above your head and it is clearly frustrating you.  You do not understand the law and how it operates.


It is evident you do not understand the word "impeach" and the way attorney's use it strategically with regard to witnesses in the court of law.


This is evidence that Trayvon used his fists on Zimmerman's face.  Nothing more.  "A single small abrasion to one finger" is all the evidence needed to prove that point.

more rubbish ,explain the relevant difference between my comment:

"so if your actions lead a reasonable person to think that there is a very good likelihood that you are going to cause them physical harm...you don't think this "equates" to provoking them to use force against you?"

and yours

"Moreover, Trayvon's reasonable belief that his safety is in danger does not equate to Zimmerman actually and initially provoking the use of force against himself."  

if trayvon had a "reasonable belief" that his safety was in danger, then obviously that reasonable belief came from zimmerman's actions?

if zimmerman's actions did not initially provoke trayvon to use force, how can trayvon's belief that he was in real physical danger be deemed "reasonable"?

call it impeach, call it what you like it boils down to the same thing, if the prosecution(or defence) can show inconsistencies and contradictions in a witnesses testimony it will put doubt in the jury's mind as to the reliability and credibility of that witness.

saying that one single small abrasion on one finger is evidence that trayvon used his fists on zimmerman just shows exactly what a retard you are, you could sustain that injury from brushing against a wall, from possibly brushing it against the concrete in the struggle...

if you had pummelled f@ck out of someone's face, making them fear for their life, causing the facial damage reported in zimmerman's medical report, you would expect a little more damage to your fists than a single small abrasion to one finger.

you are right though, i am frustrated that i have spent so much time arguing with someone who is clearly suffering some form of mental retardation.

[Jack T. Cross]

Your inability to read and comprehend the posts that I have written in direct response to you, correlates strongly with your understanding and comprehension of this case.

Sure, SLYY.

Who will assign a meaning of "mere fluff" to the words?

[pulling weight]

The racist black hater SLYY still weaving like a snake trying to defend the murderer

[SLYY]

more rubbish ,explain the relevant difference between my comment:

"so if your actions lead a reasonable person to think that there is a very good likelihood that you are going to cause them physical harm...you don't think this "equates" to provoking them to use force against you?"

and yours

"Moreover, Trayvon's reasonable belief that his safety is in danger does not equate to Zimmerman actually and initially provoking the use of force against himself."  

Sure.  

The difference is:
You are stating that a reasonable person perceiving provocation equates to the defendant actually provoking this reasonable person.  

I am saying that Trayvon may have been reasonable in believing that Zimmerman was provoking him when in fact, Zimmerman was doing no such thing.  Thus, Trayvon may have been justified in defending himself against Zimmerman; however, Zimmerman will not be cubed into FL Statute 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

This is a significant difference.  Nonetheless, even if the case comes under 776.041, 2(a) will be very beneficial to Zimmerman.  I will refrain from name calling because this is complicated stuff and it is clear that you are not alone in misinterpreting it.

call it impeach, call it what you like it boils down to the same thing, if the prosecution(or defence) can show inconsistencies and contradictions in a witnesses testimony it will put doubt in the jury's mind as to the reliability and credibility of that witness.

These are small inconsistencies which are completely normal in ALL cases that go to trial regarding all subject matters.  There may be bigger inconsistencies brought up at trial, but the ones you stated will not have the effect you think they will.

saying that one single small abrasion on one finger is evidence that trayvon used his fists on zimmerman just shows exactly what a retard you are, you could sustain that injury from brushing against a wall, from possibly brushing it against the concrete in the struggle...

if you had pummelled f@ck out of someone's face, making them fear for their life, causing the facial damage reported in zimmerman's medical report, you would expect a little more damage to your fists than a single small abrasion to one finger.

I guess every time someone punches something, their hand is completely busted open and bleeding all over the place.  Of course not.  But, an abrasion to part of the hand is evident that he used his hand to hit Zimmerman in the face - consistent with Zimmerman's story.  By the way, getting hit once in the face can kill you.  I am sure you know that.

Again, I will not resort to calling you names as this is complex subject-matter and you are doing the best you can.  

[SLYY]

The racist black hater SLYY still weaving like a snake trying to defend the murderer

This isn't a racial matter.  The media made it that way.  I love all races of people.

[Jack T. Cross]

Really, SLYY.  You should know better than to say some of the stuff you're putting forward on this thread:

This is evidence that Trayvon used his fists on Zimmerman's face.  Nothing more.  "A single small abrasion to one finger" is all the evidence needed to prove that point.

[SLYY]

Sure, SLYY.

Who will assign a meaning of "mere fluff" to the words?

Don't forget the question you asked me, Jack.

Fair enough, then.  Please speak in terms of cause and effect, without using legal phrases.  And please remember we are talking about the ability of the jury to consider the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.

[SLYY]

Really, SLYY.  You should know better than to say some of the stuff you're putting forward on this thread:

This is evidence that Trayvon used his fists on Zimmerman's face.  Nothing more.  "A single small abrasion to one finger" is all the evidence needed to prove that point.

Really, Jack.  That is what the finger abrasion evidence will point towards.  You don't have to believe it.  It will be up to the jury as that is a key fact.  Not sure why you find that to be confusing.

[pulling weight]

This isn't a racial matter.  The media made it that way.  I love all races of people.

If Zimmerman shot a white kid doing the same thing nobody would be defending him.
You know this is true.
Zimmerman let his emotions take over and now he is suffering the consequences.
I'm not going to lose sleep over Trayvon but objectively Zimmerman committed murder.

[dr.chimps]

If Zimmerman shot a white kid doing the same thing nobody would be defending him.
You know this is true.
Zimmerman let his emotions take over and now he is suffering the consequences.
I'm not going to lose sleep over Trayvon but objectively Zimmerman committed murder.

Not likely. It would have be investigated as a wrongful death. This is what started all this nonsense - this shooting was initially, er, 'White-washed' by the local PD until it's unbelievability hit the press.   

[Jack T. Cross]

Don't forget the question you asked me, Jack.

Yes, and I ask you to continue using common languange.  I want to know who will assign such a meaning to the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.[

[Shockwave]

If Zimmerman shot a white kid doing the same thing nobody would be defending him.
You know this is true.
Zimmerman let his emotions take over and now he is suffering the consequences.
I'm not going to lose sleep over Trayvon but objectively Zimmerman committed murder.

Lol, if it had been a white guy he'd be on trial for a hate crime/murder 1.

[SLYY]

Yes, and I ask you to continue using common languange.  I want to know who will assign such a meaning to the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.[

I want to know what the words used by Zimmerman, unheard by Trayvon, leading up to the unseen encounter...have to do with the Florida Statutes in question.

[Jack T. Cross]

I want to know what the words used by Zimmerman, unheard by Trayvon, leading up to the unseen encounter...have to do with the Florida Statutes in question.

So you just won't speak in terms of a jury processing this information.  Why is that?

[SLYY]

So you just won't speak in terms of a jury processing this information.  Why is that?

I did.

It means that if a jury has sufficient faith in it, then Zimmerman may take a very long pause in a very grey place.  I can't believe that you don't understand it.

Can you share the jury instruction that you are referencing? 

Why is it that you keep bringing up facts that the don't go toward any statutory element or jury instruction?  Are you just uniformed as to how the legal system works?

[Jack T. Cross]

If you're unable to give direct answers, SLYY, why bother participating in the thread?

[SLYY]

If you're unable to give direct answers, SLYY, why bother participating in the thread?

If you are unaware of how the legal system works, Jack, why are you speaking on such matters?

[Jack T. Cross]

By the way, you edit your responses so quickly and regularly, I can't keep up with what you're trying to say.