Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist

Well, I guess, because Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him and banging his head against the concrete when he pulled his weapon shooting him first in the left knee cap and then in the right knee cap when Martin didn't get off him and quit beating him ... wasn't an option ... so when he pulled his weapon from the holster the natural movement of the forearm with the hand attached holding the weapon would be to end up in a position perpendicular to the plane of the ground on which Zimmerman was lying on his back and when he squeezed the trigger the weapon was pointed somewhere in Martin's "CENTER MASS" where 99.99% of the firearm instructors even remotely associated with LE weapons training would instruct to fire ... as opposed to some ...

TV bullshit knee cap shooting lame ass stunt ....

.. that could result in the person shot bleeding out and dying anyway!

Now ... where was it in that manual about shooting knee caps?

Item #4 that DEMONSTRATES that you HAVE NO QUALIFIED FIREARMS TRAINING.

Uncle, father, quarry, or anywhere.

Why would anyone have 53 weapons when they don't know how to use one? Originally Posted by LexusLover

a witness said no head banging took place and apparently you've never had the crap beat out of you, beat the crap out of someone, or have EVEN seen someone getting the crap beat out of them ..

It wasn't directed to the Trayvon Martin case specifically.

... justified in using deadly force. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It applies to the TM case. Directly. But you are absolutely correct .. video or none.

It has to do with the definition of "deadly force" .... "deadly force" includes force that will cause serious bodily injury .... it is NOT exclusively ... "killing" someone ...

... if they die from the intended "serious bodily injury" ... it is still "self-defense" ...

Then look at the self-defense statutory language ... and the case law interpretations.

I will predict there will be NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in this case that

... Zimmerman INTENDED TO KILL Martin.

"Intent to kill" is customarily required in a capital case. Not in a straight murder case.

Had he fired more than once into Martin or stood over him and executed him then perhaps.

a witness said no head banging took place and apparently you've never had the crap beat out of you, beat the crap out of someone, or have EVEN seen someone getting the crap beat out of them .. Originally Posted by CJ7

"a witness" ... actually I saw the first officer on the scene testify and watched his lips move while he was describing Zimmerman's bloody face, the back of his bloody head, and the back of his clothing which were much wetter than the front with grass all over them ... and another witness took a photo of the back of Zimmerman's bloody head before the police got there ... and the 1st officer so testified .... so ANOTHER WITNESS saw the damage to the back of his head ... photographed it ... and yet ANOTHER WITNESS saw who he described as Martin by clothing on top of Zimmerman pounding him with "martial arts" type blows ....

as for the above quote ... you no less about me than you know about weapons training, the law or the case.

And you know ZIP .. as in NOTHING .. about self-defense with weapons, the law or the case!

So, do the math. 53 "guns"? Or was that just 52?

However, Jonathan Good said he did not see anyone's head being slammed into the concrete sidewalk, which Zimmerman has said Martin did to him. Good initially testified that it appeared "there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown," but during detailed questioning he said he saw only "downward" arm movements being made

in court, under oath ... not what some cop said at the scene

However, Jonathan Good said he did not see anyone's head being slammed into the concrete sidewalk, which Zimmerman has said Martin did to him. Good initially testified that it appeared "there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown," but during detailed questioning he said he saw only "downward" arm movements being made

in court, under oath ... not what some cop said at the scene Originally Posted by CJ7

You sound just like the prosecution making the case for the defense...Both of you are confusing me on where you stand on the issue. The same witness said that was when he went back in to call 911 because he thought it was getting "serious", as in serious bodily injury to Zimmerman.

"a witness" ... actually I saw the first officer on the scene testify and watched his lips move while he was describing Zimmerman's bloody face, the back of his bloody head, and the back of his clothing which were much wetter than the front with grass all over them ... and another witness took a photo of the back of Zimmerman's bloody head before the police got there ... and the 1st officer so testified .... so ANOTHER WITNESS saw the damage to the back of his head ... photographed it ... and yet ANOTHER WITNESS saw who he described as Martin by clothing on top of Zimmerman pounding him with "martial arts" type blows ....

as for the above quote ... you no less about me than you know about weapons training, the law or the case.

And you know ZIP .. as in NOTHING .. about self-defense with weapons, the law or the case!

So, do the math. 53 "guns"? Or was that just 52? Originally Posted by LexusLover

apparently everyone KNOWS you aren't educated enough to distinguish the difference between NO and KNOWS .... but you get a pass because you're a lawyer aint cha?

..in court, under oath ... not what some cop said at the scene Originally Posted by CJ7

I'm talking about the officer's TESTIMONY at the TRIAL .. AS HIS WORDS WERE SPOKEN.

If one is lying on one's back with one's head on concrete and another is hitting one in the face, one's head goes back into the concrete and stops abruptly, which causes the brain to bounce off the back of the inside of one's skull and then recoil to the front of one's skull each time a blow is struck ... which results in damage to the brain, which is serious bodily injury and can result in death .... for the defense of which the use of "deadly force" is justified .. if a "reasonable" person would be believe that they were in danger of being caused serious bodily injury or death.

There is the Florida statute, which is similar to most through out the United States:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

.. so you heard all of the testimony of "Good" ... who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting Zimmerman in the face ... and you saw the photographs that "Good" took of the back of Zimmerman's head .... ?

Fortunately, in trials the totality of the evidence is examined to determine the factual issues the judge or jury must decide ... as opposed to the cherry-picked slices of information that media hounds want to focus upon to fit the scenario the prefer to portray for their "agenda."

.. the law doesn't specifically say "beat the crap" ... but it does say: "great bodily harm" ...

and one can "reasonably" believe that having one's head pounded into a side walk could cause "great bodily harm" (if not "death") if not prevented by using deadly force!

Those are the facts from the State's witnesses!

If those six women, and it doesn't matter what color they are WTF, decide that having someone sit on them and pound their heads into the sidewalk doesn't justify shooting their attacker ... then they and the rest of the potential assault victims in the State of Florida are in deep shit! And it doesn't matter what color the attacker is WTF!

So, WTF, you are the racist. Latent and patent.

I'm talking about the officers TESTIMONY.

If one is lying on one's back with one's head on concrete and another is hitting one in the face, one's head goes back into the concrete and stops abruptly, which causes the brain to bounce off the back of the inside of one's skull and then recoil to the front of one's skull each time a blow is struck ... which results in damage to the brain, which is serious bodily injury and can result in death .... for the defense of which the use of "deadly force" is justified .. if a "reasonable" person would be believe that they were in danger of being caused serious bodily injury or death.

.. so you heard all of the testimony of "Good" ... who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting Zimmerman in the face ... and you saw the photographs that "Good" took of the back of Zimmerman's head .... ?

Fortunately, in trials the totality of the evidence is examined to determine the factual issues the judge or jury must decide ... as opposed to the cherry-picked slices of information that media hounds want to focus upon to fit the scenario the prefer to portray for their "agenda." Originally Posted by LexusLover

exactly why I tossed the cherry picked comments you quoted and quoted a witness in court, on the stand under oath

you'll figure it out one of these days ... no?

apparently everyone KNOWS you aren't educated enough to distinguish the difference between NO and KNOWS .... but you get a pass because you're a lawyer aint cha? Originally Posted by CJ7

continuing to be childish are you?

continuing to be childish are you? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No.

You sound just like the prosecution making the case for the defense...Both of you are confusing me on where you stand on the issue. The same witness said that was when he went back in to call 911 because he thought it was getting "serious", as in serious bodily injury to Zimmerman. Originally Posted by nwarounder

"Both of you" ... do you mean CJ the firearms expert or CJ the spell check expert?

As one backs away and sees the "big picture" and not the chips and slivers ...

... one understands why the police did not pursue charges against Zimmerman.

And they got shit the Jury will never hear!!!

I'm sorry that disappoints Ms. Grace and her admirer Bimbo-WTF....NOW I guess CJ-jet jock.

apparently everyone KNOWS you aren't educated enough to distinguish the difference between NO and KNOWS .... but you get a pass because you're a lawyer aint cha? Originally Posted by CJ7

This probably doesn't matter to someone so immature,...

.... but were I preparing a document to file in a court while representing you in YOUR murder case for shooting someone in the knee caps who bled to death ... or for attempting to shoot someone in the knee caps and missing and killing a child behind the person you were trying to "wing" ... I would no doubt proof read what I was about to file before I filed it, and I would do the same for any document I was preparing for an appeal of your conviction for being a dumbass and thinking you can legal do that with impunity ....

but like I said before, which you missed in your immaturity, texting, posting on the internet, and bullshit stuff like this ... only matters to small minded idiots who lack any substance or intellectual INFORMATION to the discourse so they pick on peoples' typos .... as they are typing phonetically and quickly without pouring over their postings or texts ... for typos!

Do I know the difference? Yes. Do you? No. You are mentally too young to know.

LL,

CJ is just a troll. It was evident in COG's thread where Obama said that he would have his AG investigate all the EOs signed by GW Bush to see if they were constitutional or infringe on Americans liberties. He's got nothing.

WTF's excuse is he's a dumbass. He read a magazine article on the web that he thinks excuses his racists comments!

LL,

CJ is just a troll. It was evident in COG's thread where Obama said that he would have his AG investigate all the EOs signed by GW Bush to see if they were constitutional or infringe on Americans liberties. He's got nothing.

WTF's excuse is he's a dumbass. He read a magazine article on the web that he thinks excuses his racists comments! Originally Posted by gnadfly

think what you will,, I think you're an idiot, not to mention a partisan hack

If those six women, and it doesn't matter what color they are WTF, decide that having someone sit on them and pound their heads into the sidewalk doesn't justify shooting their attacker ... then they and the rest of the potential assault victims in the State of Florida are in deep shit! And it doesn't matter what color the attacker is WTF!

So, WTF, you are the racist. Latent and patent. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Zimmerman is going down LL, despite how much your latent racist ass is in denial.