zimmerman granted bail

[Lurker66]

For those who have not seen this..

if that pictue is evidence, as a juror, i would have some questions. Blood going down head, and towards front of head. Looks like he was laying on stomach. That much blood and it doesnt appear to run down his neck.

Also may be picture qaulity but it appears he has pattern baldness. I hadnt noticed before.

As for the bond issue, i think its fair, all things considered. Innocent until guilty works for me.
Personally, the apology sounded sincere but i would have waited until after the trial.

 

[Michael Brown]

For those who have not seen this..

What is the source of this photo?

I ask because it doesn't look like Zimmerman to me, but I could easily be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first doctored or false photo in this case.

The judge is probably pissed already and this won't make it any better.

Michael Brown

 

[O4L]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/new_photo_shows_zimmerman_bloody_H0OsgAUdCP4CdBfZhpcM2K#ixzz1scS5YmIv

I found it interesting when the Prosecutor asked (39 seconds into video) "...Tell me, after you commited this crime and you spoke to police...."

Zimmermran's lawyer did not object. Zimmerman did not say, I committed no crime.

I noticed the same thing.

I was surprised his lawyer didn't object.

 

[RidgeHunter]

That's clearly the rarely seen backside of Wooly Willy's head.

No rly, I thought the apology before the trial was weird for several reasons. Number one being the fact that if it was legit and I felt justified, I might apologize to the family for their loss after the trial, but not before. Seems like it could give the impression to some people that he's apologizing for something he did wrong. Seems like a bad move on the part of the defense, unless other evidence is stacked so heavily in the favor of the prosecution that the sympathy angle is what they're going for. The tone and wording of the apology was "I'm sorry I killed your kid, I didn't know he was young and unarmed." If the shooting was a legit use of force, then that should be irrelevant. You killed him because you had to, so are you implying that knowledge of his age and the fact he was unarmed would have made you act differently?

Second being the fact in his apology he states he didn't think Martin was that young, yet in his 911 call he guessed he immediately estimated his age as "late teens" when asked by the dispatcher.

Lastly, he was getting his ass grilled by the prosecutor in that vid over whether or not he apologized after the shooting, when, and to whom - and he was falling all over himself. If that's any type of prelude to his presence on the stand during the actual trial, the prosecution is going tie him in knots.

 

[Stephen Cue]

That's clearly the rarely seen backside of Wooly Willy's head.



No rly, I thought the apology before the trial was weird for several reasons. Number one being the fact that if it was legit and I felt justified, I might apologize to the family for their loss after the trial, but not before. Seems like it could give the impression to some people that he's apologizing for something he did wrong. Seems like a bad move on the part of the defense, unless other evidence is stacked so heavily in the favor of the prosecution that the sympathy angle is what they're going for. The tone and wording of the apology was "I'm sorry I killed your kid, I didn't know he was young and unarmed." If the shooting was a legit use of force, then that should be irrelevant. You killed him because you had to, so are you implying that knowledge of his age and the fact he was unarmed would have made you act differently?

Second being the fact in his apology he states he didn't think Martin was that young, yet in his 911 call he guessed he immediately estimated his age as "late teens" when asked by the dispatcher.

Lastly, he was getting his ass grilled by the prosecutor in that vid over whether or not he apologized after the shooting, when, and to whom - and he was falling all over himself. If that's any type of prelude to his presence on the stand during the actual trial, the prosecution is going tie him in knots.

Let me start by stating I am still withholding all judgement in this case, but pertaining to your post, Im your Huckleberry

The Apology- Your paraphrasing is misleading. His exact words are " I am sorry for your loss, I didnt know how young he was, I didnt know if he was armed or not" which does not convey guilt. If he stated it like you said he did, I would agree with you.

Trayvon's age- On the stand he states he thought he was a few years younger than himself, that does leave room for him believing this PRE-shooting, then Post-shooting realizing he was late teens. 911 call was obviously post-shooting.

Grilled- I also noticed the prosecution in an agressive agitated state, which is Im sure is 1st year law on how to "shake up" a testifier (we'll have to ask BIGRED82 who is currently in UT Law). Under the circumstances, I think he held up well and was not too flustered.

 

[penismightier]

What is the source of this photo?

I ask because it doesn't look like Zimmerman to me, but I could easily be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first doctored or false photo in this case.

The judge is probably pissed already and this won't make it any better.

Michael Brown

http://abcnews.go.com/US/slideshow/george-zimmerman-charged-jailed-16126443

ABCNews as far as I can track it back....

 

[vdub]

What is the source of this photo?

I ask because it doesn't look like Zimmerman to me, but I could easily be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first doctored or false photo in this case.

The judge is probably pissed already and this won't make it any better.

Michael Brown

It has been said the photo was taken by someone at the scene shortly after the shooting. Picture was taken by an iPhone 4S. The EXIF data on the photo shows GPS coordinates of the crime scene with time/date stamp shortly after the shooting occured.

 

[RidgeHunter]

The Apology- Your paraphrasing is misleading. His exact words are " I am sorry for your loss, I didnt know how young he was, I didnt know if he was armed or not" which does not convey guilt. If he stated it like you said he did, I would agree with you.

My point was I can easily see how many people in the general public could see an tacit admission of guilt there. Of course it doesn't convey guilt, but a trial is not a math equation full of facts and numbers. Things like how he appears to the 12 people staring at him while he talks can and will make a difference. My paraphrase was a hyperbolic device of what I think his apology might sound like to the average Wal-mart shopper, IE a jury member. Again, why mention he "didn't know he was young and unarmed"? - in an apology? Does Zimmerman think he was wrong to shoot him because of those two conditions?

I don't think it's a stretch that many people hearing that could have those questions in their minds.

Trayvon's age- On the stand he states he thought he was a few years younger than himself, that does leave room for him believing this PRE-shooting, then Post-shooting realizing he was late teens. 911 call was obviously post-shooting.

What? The 911 call I'm referencing was pre-shooting. The call Zimmerman made to report Martin acting suspicious, before they made contact and before the shooting. 1:09 in this video.

Grilled- I also noticed the prosecution in an agressive agitated state, which is Im sure is 1st year law on how to "shake up" a testifier (we'll have to ask BIGRED82 who is currently in UT Law). Under the circumstances, I think he held up well and was not too flustered.

Indirect answers, and sticking to the same answer when it was clear that prosecutor was wanting him contradict the records with his answers as many times as he could. That's what a prosecutor does. Get him to say something, and emphasize it as much as he can. Repeat it as much as he can. Then later stand there and try to prove why what he said could not have happened or did not happen.

Get him to repeat something multiple times. Get more detailed. Then imply that you have evidence to the contrary. He can either stick to his answer, or feeling that the prosecutor has him pegged, pull out the "I can't recall." after giving multiple affirmative answers. Either way, they make defendants contradict themselves and seem unsure. They want to make him dance, and he was no Fred Astaire in that clip.

If that "agitated state" had him stumbling at all, he's in for a surprise at trial.

 

[twoguns?]

He must have slipped and fallen on the back of his head while attempting to steal Trayvon's Girl Scout cookies he was selling.

I heard it was skittles that he had stolen from the store he was runnin from

 

[Stephen Cue]

My point was I can easily see how many people in the general public could see an tacit admission of guilt there. Of course it doesn't convey guilt, but a trial is not a math equation full of facts and numbers. Things like how he appears to the 12 people staring at him while he talks can and will make a difference. My paraphrase was a hyperbolic device of what I think his apology might sound like to the average Wal-mart shopper, IE a jury member. Again, why mention he "didn't know he was young and unarmed"? - in an apology? Does Zimmerman think he was wrong to shoot him because of those two conditions?

I don't think it's a stretch that many people hearing that could have those questions in their minds.



What? The 911 call I'm referencing was pre-shooting. The call Zimmerman made to report Martin acting suspicious, before they made contact and before the shooting. 1:09 in this video.




Indirect answers, and sticking to the same answer when it was clear that prosecutor was wanting him contradict the records with his answers as many times as he could. That's what a prosecutor does. Get him to say something, and emphasize it as much as he can. Repeat it as much as he can. Then later stand there and try to prove why what he said could not have happened or did not happen.

Get him to repeat something multiple times. Get more detailed. Then imply that you have evidence to the contrary. He can either stick to his answer, or feeling that the prosecutor has him pegged, pull out the "I can't recall." after giving multiple affirmative answers. Either way, they make defendants contradict themselves and seem unsure. They want to make him dance, and he was no Fred Astaire in that clip.

If that "agitated state" had him stumbling at all, he's in for a surprise at trial.

Yes, my mistake about the pre-shooting 911 call. I can also see how the "average wal-mart shopper...err..umm...jury member could see how guilty he seems. Makes me scared of ever one day being tried by Mike Judgian idiocratic jury