Is this Trayvon Martin thing getting out of control?

[Tully Mars 63]

Do you honestly believe that any one who donated money to George Zimmerman is content with the state of florida raising his bond because of the money they donated?

I don't know and neither can you

Since when do people get back the 10% that they have to put down for bail? I did not know that bail bondsman put their money and necks on the line without charging a fee.

You're confusing posting your own bond and using a bail bonds company. Many people post their own bond. Happens everyday.

[RunningMan7]

I dont see why zimmerman should be the one with benefit of doubt as far as intention. He should only get benefit of doubt as far as who shot Trayvon and the state will easily prove that Zimmerman shot the gun at Martin beyond a reasonable doubt. But why should he get credibility with the self defense thing? He has already shown he is willing to lie for more minor stuff like trying to get away with less bail. If he does that, is it a stretch to believe that he is willing to alter what happened ever so slightly (getting pounded on the ground with getting pounded on concrete with the cuts coming from a single fall after he got punched instead of repeated pounding or that he was attacked first and he did noting to provoke it). Seriously, why is this guy who has proven to lie already and has disregarded sage advice on a RECORDED 911 call be given any credibility as to what happened?

[Tully Mars 63]

I dont see why zimmerman should be the one with benefit of doubt as far as intention. He should only get benefit of doubt as far as who shot Trayvon and the state will easily prove that Zimmerman shot the gun at Martin beyond a reasonable doubt. But why should he get credibility with the self defense thing? He has already shown he is willing to lie for more minor stuff like trying to get away with less bail. If he does that, is it a stretch to believe that he is willing to alter what happened ever so slightly (getting pounded on the ground with getting pounded on concrete with the cuts coming from a single fall after he got punched instead of repeated pounding or that he was attacked first and he did noting to provoke it). Seriously, why is this guy who has proven to lie already and has disregarded sage advice on a RECORDED 911 call be given any credibility as to what happened?

Not sure about "benefit of the doubt" but he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I too think, obviously if you've followed my previous posts on the matter, he and his wife mislead the court regarding the amount they had available for bail and his defense. But it's a pretty big leap from lying about funds to committing manslaughter.

[RunningMan7]

he has every reason to lie about manslaughter. It is a twisted world if the state has to start guessing what his intention was . That is why I hate the law. The burden should be on the state to prove if someone committed an act. But the burden should shift to the defendent to prove WHY he committed such an act.

[Tully Mars 63]

he has every reason to lie about manslaughter. It is a twisted world if the state has to start guessing what his intention was . That is why I hate the law. The burden should be on the state to prove if someone committed an act. But the burden should shift to the defendent to prove WHY he committed such an act.

If he committed manslaughter he indeed does have every reason to lie about it.

The state almost always has to have motive. One reason serial killers are so difficult to identify. They often have no motive specific to the victim. They simply enjoy killing.

Once it's proven or become a fact in the legal proceeding that the suspect has in fact committed "such an act" it's often left to the defense to explain why. All kinds of why come into play, self defense, defense of others, mental illness etc... Recently a man in Texas wasn't even charged with killing another man though the fact he did did not seem t be in dispute. The fact the dead man had sexually assaulted his daughter was provided as the "why."

[sharpcat]

he has every reason to lie about manslaughter. It is a twisted world if the state has to start guessing what his intention was . That is why I hate the law. The burden should be on the state to prove if someone committed an act. But the burden should shift to the defendent to prove WHY he committed such an act.

"I would rather see one hundred guilty men go free then see one innocent man go to prison." Benjamin Franklin


Burden of proof has always been on the prosecution, if you want to convict someone of a crime you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed that crime. This freedom is what America was built on and why so many want so badly to live here and that is not going to change because a racist lynch mob wants a man hung.

If a woman kills a man who is raping her does she have to prove that the sex was non-consensual?

[Tully Mars 63]

If a woman kills a man who is raping her does she have to prove that the sex was non-consensual?

She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault. Taking a life is taken serious and if she has nothing but her word it was an assault or rape it's probably going to be a hard sell to the DA. There's a bunch of female inmates who are in custody today doing years for offing their husbands and they claimed they'd been abused, often for years. Didn't stop them from being convicted and doesn't make it right. But it does happen.

[sharpcat]

She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault. Taking a life is taken serious and if she has nothing but her word it was an assault or rape it's probably going to be a hard sell to the DA. There's a bunch of female inmates who are in custody today doing years for offing their husbands and they claimed they'd been abused, often for years. Didn't stop them from being convicted and doesn't make it right. But it does happen.

So you believe that if a woman kills a man that she claims is raping her and rape kit tests show that there was significant reason to believe that she may be telling the truth, this woman should have the burden of proof fall on her to prove that this man attacked her?????

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough this woman must now continue living in the shadows of her attack until she can prove to the court that she was indeed being raped?

What the fukk is wrong with you people?

[Tully Mars 63]

So you believe that if a woman kills a man that she claims is raping her and rape kit tests show that there was significant reason to believe that she may be telling the truth, this woman should have the burden of proof fall on her to prove that this man attacked her?????

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough this woman must now continue living in the shadows of her attack until she can prove to the court that she was indeed being raped?

What the fukk is wrong with you people?

Dude what is wrong with you? Whatever it is perhaps you might seek help. I'm not sure if it's simple lack of reading comprehension or something far more serious.

See when I write-

She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault.

That evidence would include things like-

(A) rape kit tests show that there was significant reason to believe that she may be telling the truth

Or-

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA

No where did I, or anyone else, post they believed-

that if a woman kills a man that she claims is raping her and rape kit tests show that there was significant reason to believe that she may be telling the truth, this woman should have the burden of proof fall on her to prove that this man attacked her?????

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough this woman must now continue living in the shadows of her attack until she can prove to the court that she was indeed being raped?

I simply stated "She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault." Tearing of the vaginal walls and DNA would be evidence.

Seriously seek help, soon.

[sharpcat]

Dude what is wrong with you? Whatever it is perhaps you might seek help. I'm not sure if it's simple lack of reading comprehension or something far more serious.

See when I write-



Ru

That evidence would include things like-



Or-



No where did I, or anyone else, post they believed-




I simply stated "She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault." Tearing of the vaginal walls and DNA would be evidence.

Seriously seek help, soon.

Tearing of the vaginal walls and DNA would occur with consensual sex also so that is no more evidence than Zimmermans bloody head and broken nose. George Zimmerman had injuries consistant with his claim of self defense just like in the example of the rape victim, so please explain to me why you think that a rape victim should be put in jail and dragged through the legal system (floating the bill for all legal fees) until she can prove herself innocent.

Runningman7 was suggesting that George Zimmerman should have the burden on him to prove that he did not murder Trayvon instead of the norm of the law requiring the prosecution to have the burden of proof.

Whats wrong with you Tully?
Are you black?
Why do you feel the need to post a counter argument to every post I make? even when it is a dumbass argument you are making?

[sharpcat]

mmmhmmmmmm............look at that redbone Tully she fine as hell dog

[Tully Mars 63]

Your posts routinely lack complete logic and often prior to the 25-30th post in a thread they contradict themselves. Kind of like your above post where you ask me to explain-

why you (I) think that a rape victim should be put in jail and dragged through the legal system (floating the bill for all legal fees) until she can prove herself innocent.

Please show me where I posted anything that even suggested I thought that. You won't find it because I never stated it nor do I think that to be true. So basically it a BS argument you're trying to make by asserting statements to me. It's, like most of your posts, are complete... BS.

When a person of your intellectual skills refer to my statements as being "dumbass" I take that as a good sign and a complement. You should stick to topics of which you have knowledge. You know like how all of South America is East of Virginia. That was classic.

Just wondering... why do you care or ask what race I am?

[Tully Mars 63]

look at that redbone Tully she fine as hell dog

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Is it English?

[sharpcat]

Your post routinely lack complete logic and often prior to the 25-30th post in a thread the contradict themselves. Kind of like your above post where you ask me to explain-



Please show me where I posted anything that even suggested I thought that. You won't find it because I never stated it nor do I think that to be true. So basically it a BS argument you're trying to make by asserting statement to me. It's, like most of you're posts, are complete... BS.

When a person of your intellectual skills refer to my statements as being "dumbass" I take that as a good sign and a complement. You should stick to topics of which you have knowledge. You know like how all of South America is East of Virginia. That was classic.

Just wondering... why do you care or ask what race I am?

I said South America was south-west from Virginia and you just confirmed that DUMBASS.

Learn how to write-



The Mayans were never in the southwest nor are they long gone.

South America is most definitely south-west from Virginia.

Are you black Tully? it is simple yes or no.

[Tully Mars 63]

I said South America was south-west from Virginia and you just confirmed that DUMBASS.

Are you black Tully? it is simple yes or no.

Sorry was enjoying the sun, a beer and my pool.

Ok, here's the deal on a map North is up, South is down and West is left and East is right. There are these lines people use on maps. They're called latitude and longitude. Latitude is used to denote North and South while longitude is used to show East and West. Still with me? I Hope so. I'm using small words. Now here's a map they used to teach basic geography (fancy word meaning map learning) to 5th graders-



See how almost all the United States and Virgina is to the left of 75 degrees longitude and about 95% of South America is to the right of 75 degrees? That means you'd have to be a complete dumb ass (see there it's two words) to think that "South America was south-west from Virginia" or that I just confirmed it. You know since the entire place is basically South East of Virgina ... dumb ass.

[sharpcat]

The Mayan civilization was located off of the Gulf of Mexico both to the south and to the west of the beaches of Virginia where early American settlers first landed. This would mean that American settlers would have traveled in a south-west direction toward the Mayan civilization.

You suck as a troll!!!

[sharpcat]

Belize- 17 N, 88.5 W

Plymouth, Virginia- 42 N, 70 W

Belize is roughly 1,300 miles West of Plymouth VA.

[Tully Mars 63]

Man, you are a special kind of moron. You just posted a map of of Central America and identified it has being South America. And the Mayan people never lived in South America-

The Maya civilization extended throughout the present-day southern Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, and the Yucatán Peninsula states of Quintana Roo, Campeche and Yucatán. The Maya area also extended throughout the northern Central American region, including the present-day nations of Guatemala, Belize, northern El Salvador and western Honduras.

The Maya area is generally divided into three loosely defined zones: the southern Pacific lowlands, the highlands, and the northern lowlands. The Maya highlands include all of elevated terrain in Guatemala and the Chiapas highlands. The southern lowlands lie just south of the highlands, and incorporate a part of the Mexican state of Chiapas, the south coast of Guatemala, Belize and El Salvador. The northern lowlands cover all of the Yucatán Peninsula, including the Mexican states of Yucatán, Campeche and Quintana Roo, the Petén Department of Guatemala, and all of Belize. Parts of the Mexican states of Tabasco and Chiapas are also included in the northern lowlands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

Did you attend a school somewhere? If so did they pick you up on a very small bus with some students, possibly yourself, wearing head protection? If you did attend some type school you should either request a refund or send back any diplomas or certificates they gave you. Clearly they were issued in error.

Once more I'll just ask you to Google "forum troll." You try to flame people on here by implying they're clowns, gay, in a gay marriage, living in a basement somewhere or are a "dumbass." But just as the literally skills you exhibit by the way you spell "dumbass" you don't have the basic intelligence needed to flame others. That means most, if not all, your flame attempts simply point out you're just not that smart.

Oh, I forgot I probably should have told you that map I used to teach you geographic directions appears flat on your computer screen but the world is actually round and not flat.

[Tully Mars 63]

Belize- 17 N, 88.5 W

Plymouth, Virginia- 42 N, 70 W

Belize is roughly 1,300 miles West of Plymouth VA.

Belize is a beautiful place to dive. The "Blue Hole" is literally stunning. But it and the rest of Belize is located in Central America not South America.

See those colors on the map you posted? The grey areas show North America. White denotes Centeral America and green is used to show South America... you know that place that is South West of Virgina.

[sharpcat]

So I mistakenly stated the location of the Mayan civilization as South America instead of Central America, in a thread that had nothing to do with Mayan culture where I was justing busting on King Mayan, and you took the thread off topic to argue over it.

Now you have carried that over to a thread about Trayvon Martin because you are unable to debate your position on the case without resorting to childish insults.

You are pathetic Tully!!

[sharpcat]

Back on topic Tully.

Are you black? is this why you continue to post on this Trayvon Martin topic?


I stand for liberty and justice for all, not justice for Trayvon. I stand up for George Zimmerman because I feel that the law should be held to the high standard of innocent until proven guilty and that no man of any color should be subjected to facing criminal charges of any sort without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

If you are not black I am curious as to what your agenda is in this case?????? please share.

[Tully Mars 63]

I've debated and supported my position fine. You've contradicted yourself numerous times. You've repeatedly tried to claim I've either made statements or held beliefs regarding the case (and the justice system in general) that I clearly have not stated nor posted.

And let's just get it straight who insulted who first. I didn't start insulting you until you insulted me. You want to flame people and expect them not to point out when you make ridiculus claims and statements? What is that the "I'm rubber and you're glue" playground defense? You implied I was a clown, gay, in a gay marriage and possibly living in a basement. You're the one who called me a "dumbass" because I stated South America was East of Virgina.

Yes, how very "dumbass" of me.

You've asked me a couple times if I were black... why?

If you want to see pathetic go look in a mirror.

[Tully Mars 63]

Back on topic Tully.

Are you black? is this why you continue to post on this Trayvon Martin topic?


I stand for liberty and justice for all, not justice for Trayvon. I stand up for George Zimmerman because I feel that the law should be held to the high standard of innocent until proven guilty and that no man of any color should be subjected to facing criminal charges of any sort without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

If you are not black I am curious as to what your agenda is in this case?????? please share.

I have no agenda in the case and have repeatedly stated I hope Mr. Zimmerman gets a fair trial. I've also posted, either in this thread or another, that the outcome of this trial will have zero impact on my life what so ever.

Basically I have no skin in this matter.

[sharpcat]

I've debated and supported my position fine. You've contradicted yourself numerous times. You've repeatedly tried to claim I've either made statements or held beliefs regarding the case (and the justice system in general) that I clearly have not stated nor posted.

And let's just get it straight who insulted who first. I didn't start insulting you until you insulted me. You want to flame people and expect them not to point out when you make ridiculus claims and statements? What is that the "I'm rubber and you're glue" playground defense? You implied I was a clown, gay, in a gay marriage and possibly living in a basement. You're the one who called me a "dumbass" because I stated South America was East of Virgina.

Yes, how very "dumbass" of me.

You've asked me a couple times if I were black... why?

If you want to see pathetic go look in a mirror.

Post #213 is where you first started running into trouble arguing your position and began deflecting away from the topic and making personal insults.

You realize community colleges don't usually offer bachelor degrees, right?

Are you saying the highly educated attorneys who filed the charges are not as highly educated as the state attorney that didn't?

Much of what you say doesn't make any logical sense. Then you throw out some comment about a race card. Don't think I've mentioned anyone race. When it comes to race I really don't care.

You seem very ill informed regarding the justice system and the educational system.

I challenge you or anyone else to go back and find any posts from me before that making any insults towards you.

I never said you were gay, I made a statement about what it would be like to be in the shoes of the Zimmermans, you somehow took this as I was talking about you to which I replied "unless you have a husband who is in jail and recently came across $155,000 than I was not referring to you.".

I never made a single insult about you and continued arguing my position with facts involving the case up until you regressed back to personal insults in post #240

I didn't have access to the transcripts you're partially posting here prior to leaving on a weekend dive trip. So maybe it's possible he (George) first mentioned the money in terms of .01% of the actual amount. So on that account you could be correct. But even in your argument you claim they didn't know it was their money... and they didn't want people to know how much money they had. That's a rather silly argument. If they didn't know they could use it why were they renting a house with it? Plus none of your posts address her estimating to her husband the amount available in the donation account and then when asked for an estimation from the judge she states she has "no idea."

Your arguments in this thread and elsewhere on this site lack logic and at times are just plain silly.

[sharpcat]

You are troll Tully

When a debate is not going your way you resort to deflecting off topic and insults. You followed me to another thread and took one off topic post that I made to my good buddy King Mayan and completely derailed that thread. You completely took this thread and derailed it off topic.

You are a troll Tully

[Tully Mars 63]

Post #213 is where you first started running into trouble arguing your position and began deflecting away from the topic and making personal insults.


I challenge you or anyone else to go back and find any posts from me before that making any insults towards you.

I never said you were gay, I made a statement about what it would be like to be in the shoes of the Zimmermans, you somehow took this as I was talking about you to which I replied "unless you have a husband who is in jail and recently came across $155,000 than I was not referring to you.".

I never made a single insult about you and continued arguing my position with facts involving the case up until you regressed back to personal insults in post #240

It's insulting when I suggest that your posts lack logic and are silly? Is it also insulting when I notice you don't seem to know East from West?

You never stated "You would be the clown sitting in his basement ranting about what you would have done if you were in their situation?"

And I suppose you never called me a "dumbass" either... or is that edited out now too?

[Tully Mars 63]

In post 252 I stated-

She better have some evidence it was a rape or assault. Taking a life is taken serious and if she has nothing but her word it was an assault or rape it's probably going to be a hard sell to the DA. There's a bunch of female inmates who are in custody today doing years for offing their husbands and they claimed they'd been abused, often for years. Didn't stop them from being convicted and doesn't make it right. But it does happen.

In post 253 you reply with-

So you believe that if a woman kills a man that she claims is raping her and rape kit tests show that there was significant reason to believe that she may be telling the truth, this woman should have the burden of proof fall on her to prove that this man attacked her?????

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough this woman must now continue living in the shadows of her attack until she can prove to the court that she was indeed being raped?

What the fukk is wrong with you people?

And you think I'm the troll? You're clearly making a bunch of assertions I never stated. I clearly stated "she better have evidence." Things like DNA and rape kits are evidence.

Which is more insulting stating someones posts seemed to lack logic and knowledge or asking "what the fukk is wrong with you people?"

In post 256 you quote a post/image of mine in a "Boob" thread and state-

mmmhmmmmmm............look at that redbone Tully she fine as hell dog

And you think I'm the one derailing the thread.

Ok, if you say so.

[Tully Mars 63]

In post #253 you state-

Tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough this woman must now continue living in the shadows of her attack until she can prove to the court that she was indeed being raped?

Then in post 255 you state-

Tearing of the vaginal walls and DNA would occur with consensual sex also so that is no more evidence than Zimmermans bloody head and broken nose.

In one posts you ask if the tearing of the vaginal walls and this mans DNA is not enough? And three posts later you answer your own question with the "Tearing of the vaginal walls and DNA would occur with consensual sex also so that is no more evidence than Zimmermans bloody head and broken nose."

Yes, I'm the one having trouble holding my point in this debate.

You then ask-

Whats wrong with you Tully?
Are you black?
Why do you feel the need to post a counter argument to every post I make? even when it is a dumbass argument you are making?

Yes, what's wrong with me... that's the problem here.

[sharpcat]

Bombshell dropped on Zimmerman haters!!!!!!

Asked by Morgan whether the couple were “deliberately trying to hide the truth” about their finances, O’Mara asked, “from who? From the jailers or other people in the cell [with Zimmerman]? There is not one phone call that evidences their intent to deceive the judge.”

O’Mara didn’t specify who Shellie Zimmerman might have been attempting to obscure the truth about the PayPal account from, but he hinted that further evidence may prove that his client, George Zimmerman, had no intention of deceiving the court. “There is one tape that George says [to Shellie Zimmermn,] before you testify, pray first and tell the truth.”

Much to the disliking of racist black mobs who are trolling the internet to smear George's name there is not one hint in any of the 911 tapes that shows intent to deceive the judge, as a matter of fact there is documented evidence showing that George urged Shellie to tell the truth at the bail hearing.

George never lied during the bail hearing and the credibility of his wife has absolutely no significance in this case as she is not a witness and will never be called to the stand in this trial.

Zimmerman goes free on June 29th and it is very likely that his bond will remain $150,000 as O'Mara plans to call the bondsmen as witnesses for George to testify that he is not a flight risk.

sorry Tully.

[Tully Mars 63]

Who's Morgan and where do these quote come from. You know.. sourced.

Why are you apologizing to me?

[sharpcat]

O'Mara Interview on Piers Morgan CNN.

http://thegrio.com/2012/06/19/zimmerman-attorney-acknowledges-couple-used-code-to-hide-paypal-haul/

[Tully Mars 63]

O'Mara Interview on Piers Morgan CNN.

http://thegrio.com/2012/06/19/zimmer...e-paypal-haul/

Ah, I see. So their attorney went on CNN and defended them in public? After the damage they've done to themselves I'll bet he felt like he had little choice.

But with statements like-

There is “no question — they did not tell the whole truth to the judge, which damages their credibility,” O’Mara said.

And-

In the interview, O’Mara called the question of what Shellie Zimmerman knew about her and her husband’s true financial situation “a significant issue.” He said she did know more than she told the judge, and added, “we acknowledged that four days after the bond hearing.”

And

O’Mara said he was “not excusing him,” but that Zimmerman “owned up to” the untruths “right away, and transferred the money right away.”

In court when they swear you in as a witness they have you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." When you're own attorney publicly states "There is “no question — they did not tell the whole truth to the judge" and refers to "untruths" that were owned up to right away it's not all that great. O'Mara's trying to put this in the best possible light. He should be that's his job.

My guess, just my guess, the perjury charge sticks and in the end Ms. Zimmerman probably walks with probation and maybe some community service. I'd also guess George get bail again.

This will be behind them soon and they can focus on the trial. I wouldn't take money on it's outcome. I think this has hurt their credibility hopefully George can get a fair trial. In a highly public trial like this it won't be easy and there will be unhappy people regardless of the outcome.

[sharpcat]

I don't see how this hurts "their" credibility. I see how it hurts the credibility of his wife but her credibility does not matter because she has no reason to be used as a credible witness in GZ's trial. GZ was in jail when the funds came in and had no access to the account. To the best of my knowledge George himself never testified under oath about the account so Shellie is the only on who lied.

If the whole point of the media rush as of late is to suggest that GZ lacks credibility it is a complete failure because it was his wife who lied not him, in fact there is clear audio from the phone calls where he told Shellie to tell the truth at the bond hearing.

Zimmermans bail gets reinstated without being raised GZ gets time served and goes back into hiding. Shellie perjury charges will remain pending and she may get a PBJ or have it put on a stet and may possibly even go away completely if charges against GZ are dropped and he was found to be wrongfully jailed.

[agharah1]

Pssh. Whatever. My friend used to be a State Atty in Florida and she worked at Starbucks on weekends for spending money. Cops ALWAYS make more. ALWAYS. They're the one group of government employees neither party wants to demonize.

In any case, its not a question of "this Travyon Martin" thing getting out of hand. You're thinking too small. What's gotten out of hand is "Stand Your Ground".

[Tully Mars 63]

I don't see how this hurts "their" credibility. I see how it hurts the credibility of his wife but her credibility does not matter because she has no reason to be used as a credible witness in GZ's trial. GZ was in jail when the funds came in and had no access to the account. To the best of my knowledge George himself never testified under oath about the account so Shellie is the only on who lied.

If the whole point of the media rush as of late is to suggest that GZ lacks credibility it is a complete failure because it was his wife who lied not him, in fact there is clear audio from the phone calls where he told Shellie to tell the truth at the bond hearing.

O'mara seems to think it's hurts their credibility. He out and out states that. Although I guess it's possible he's just playing to a potential jury pool.

Zimmermans bail gets reinstated without being raised GZ gets time served and goes back into hiding. Shellie perjury charges will remain pending and she may get a PBJ or have it put on a stet and may possibly even go away completely if charges against GZ are dropped and he was found to be wrongfully jailed.

GZ gets out on time served? Time served for what? He's in jail on some serious charges. He was out on bond. He could very well get bond again, my guess is he will. But he won't be getting "time served." I don't even think that's a legal option in this case at this point.