The trial of George Zimmerman

[nogods]

From Yahoo News this evening:



Link Removed

Yes, tough to unring a bell. And it is never good when one of your witness's answers is struck even if the answer was given on cross examination.

When I heard the question I thought it was proper because it related to the officer's state of mind during the questioning of the suspect - which is a lot different from simply asking whether one witness believes another witness. But I didn't hear the argument on that issue or the judge's reasoning.

 

[JCliff]

Prosecution rests. In a sane world, populated by logical individuals, all the defense should really need to do at this point is say, "the defense rests." I don't see how anyone could conclude at this point that 2 murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But we've all been surprised in the past...

 

[BluesStringer]

Prosecution rests. In a sane world, populated by logical individuals, all the defense should really need to do at this point is say, "the defense rests." I don't see how anyone could conclude at this point that 2 murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But we've all been surprised in the past...

The problem is for Zimmerman though, is that even if the jury agrees that Murder 2 isn't proven, they could still go with Manslaughter, and in FL, when the dead person is a minor, there are enhanced sentences. Apparently, Zimmerman could get close to the same amount of time for Manslaughter as Murder 2 with those enhancements. I've heard as much as 30 years. All women on the jury....Trayvon's mom just testified that it was her son screaming....if it were me, I would not want to leave it to chance. Whether my burden or not, I would go for proving I was justified in pulling the trigger, or at least get as close to proving that as I possibly could.

I listened intently to the arguments for a Judgement of Acquittal by O'Mara yesterday, and this non-attorney found them quite well-organized and on-point, as well as being well-delivered. The judge turned the motion down before O'Mara was back in his seat. I'm not expecting her to emphasize the parts of the law that favor acquittal when she gives her jury instructions. She'll mention them as she is obligated to do, but I'd just about bet that she'll emphasize or spend significantly more time on the law(s) that convict GZ rather than acquit him. She appears to me to be as much against the Zimmerman side of the case as Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton is.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

A rant... not connected to anything or any posts... just a rant...

Although I've tried NOT to get caught up in the Zimmerman/Trayvon sensationalistic theater side show called a "trial" I have learned one thing...

In the courtroom laws mean nothing. What is of utmost importance is how a person's actions.. their past or present actions and/or intentions... and their actions during the event... can be presented in a manner that psychologically manipulates the jury to bring forth the desired result.

Or... in plain layman's language...

It's all a game. Nothing but a game. He who can present his agenda/perspective in the most pervasive and manipulative manner to the jury and get the verdict desired... will win the game. Facts do not stand on their own but are merely things to be manipulated.. spun.. and presented in a way that puts the agenda (prosecutor's agenda of a finding of "guilty" or a defense attny's. agenda of a finding of "not guilty") in the most favorable light.

Folks... it's all theater. It's a dog and pony show. The truth doesn't matter.. all that matters is who can convince the jury that their story is what actually happened. Doesn't matter if the story is BS.. all that matters is to convince the jury.

And where is the law.. the supposed bottom line.. in all that? Nowhere.. absolutely nowhere... since the law itself is being used to get the verdict desired.

I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.

 

[JCliff]

The problem is for Zimmerman though, is that even if the jury agrees that Murder 2 isn't proven, they could still go with Manslaughter, and in FL, when the dead person is a minor, there are enhanced sentences. Apparently, Zimmerman could get close to the same amount of time for Manslaughter as Murder 2 with those enhancements. I've heard as much as 30 years. All women on the jury....Trayvon's mom just testified that it was her son screaming....if it were me, I would not want to leave it to chance. Whether my burden or not, I would go for proving I was justified in pulling the trigger, or at least get as close to proving that as I possibly could.

I listened intently to the arguments for a Judgement of Acquittal by O'Mara yesterday, and this non-attorney found them quite well-organized and on-point, as well as being well-delivered. The judge turned the motion down before O'Mara was back in his seat. I'm not expecting her to emphasize the parts of the law that favor acquittal when she gives her jury instructions. She'll mention them as she is obligated to do, but I'd just about bet that she'll emphasize or spend significantly more time on the law(s) that convict GZ rather than acquit him. She appears to me to be as much against the Zimmerman side of the case as Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton is.

Blues

.
I agree with your observations. I definitely would not rest, as this is not a debate in a course of logic, and of course guilty of a lesser included offense is still a distinct possibility. I'm not sure exactly how Florida law works on that. To me it's just very clear that 2 murder was a huge overreach. I have not been able to watch all of the proceedings, but my perception of the judge is much the same as yours. I don't think she's technically compromised herself, but my sense is that she has a desired outcome in mind.

 

[BluesStringer]

....I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.

Just snipped the above to save space. Otherwise, consider this a reply to the gist of all of it.

The only thing that would change my bottom line, which is virtually identical to the bottom line above, is if the jury overlooks the partisan hype, emotionalism and manipulations, and follows the law. I guess we wouldn't know that for sure unless at least one agreed to be interviewed after the verdict is read, but I think even short of that happenstance, that it can be assumed that they either understood FL law on the justifiable use of force, remained adherent to the "reasonable man in fear of great bodily injury or death" doctrine, or well-understood the constitutional axiom of reasonable doubt if they come back with a not guilty verdict. At least one of those three things are present in this case (I think all three are), and any one that they determine to be factual, should lead to a not guilty verdict.

As far as games go, you're right Bikenut, this is indeed a game. I built a pretty decent vocabulary playing Scrabble with my granny, mom and aunt when I was a kid, and I learn a lot from following trials too. I learn about the law, which may or may not serve Zimmerman well, but the more I understand of it for myself, the better armed I am to play the game should it ever be me sitting at the defense table instead of some shlub I don't know from Adam. The fact that it's a game, or even a wholly corrupted, fixed game, isn't reason of itself to avoid exposure to it for me. It's still instructional, still interesting (to me), still kind of exciting in a frustrating sort of way, and there's always the chance that after all the bad calls, unforced errors and cheap shots, the jurors might still make the end result something akin to "justice."

Blues

 

[kerb]

Even the MMA has some rules or a code.
The code I speak of is something like a bunch of men in a bar or better yet a barber shop. They can be trash talking telling blue jokes etc.
the moment a kid or a woman walks in the conversation changes. No one has to say anything, No one has to tell anyone to clean it up. They just do it because they are men.
And yes, women walk into a barber shop all time to get haircuts for their young kids.
I have been in bars and taverns where the same rules apply and when you have the young asswipe that is MFing this and Fbombing that in front of my wife or other women. I have the right to tell him to knock it off and if he doesn't comply a punch in the nose is totally justified. Any other man in the place just give a grin and didn't see notin.

That is all I am saying.

The rules in mma are for the dojo.

For the most part I agree with your code, until someone initiates a physical attack on me.
At that point the "rules" are out the window.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bikenut]

"He who fights by the rules will be ruled by he who doesn't."

 

[gejoslin]

"He who fights by the rules will be ruled by he who doesn't."

Right! There are no rules in a street fight. It's whatever it takes to stay alive and as uninjured as possible. Personally once they're down and don't try to engage me, it's over. But I have seen others try to beat the loser into a grease spot. Thats just not my way.

 

[BC1]

A rant... not connected to anything or any posts... just a rant...

Although I've tried NOT to get caught up in the Zimmerman/Trayvon sensationalistic theater side show called a "trial" I have learned one thing...

In the courtroom laws mean nothing. What is of utmost importance is how a person's actions.. their past or present actions and/or intentions... and their actions during the event... can be presented in a manner that psychologically manipulates the jury to bring forth the desired result.

Or... in plain layman's language...

It's all a game. Nothing but a game. He who can present his agenda/perspective in the most pervasive and manipulative manner to the jury and get the verdict desired... will win the game. Facts do not stand on their own but are merely things to be manipulated.. spun.. and presented in a way that puts the agenda (prosecutor's agenda of a finding of "guilty" or a defense attny's. agenda of a finding of "not guilty") in the most favorable light.

Folks... it's all theater. It's a dog and pony show. The truth doesn't matter.. all that matters is who can convince the jury that their story is what actually happened. Doesn't matter if the story is BS.. all that matters is to convince the jury.

And where is the law.. the supposed bottom line.. in all that? Nowhere.. absolutely nowhere... since the law itself is being used to get the verdict desired.

I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.

All they have to do is tell the story right. And pick a jury that they can spin. I'm a lousy juror. I won't bite and I won't render a verdict where I believe I've been duped.

 

[Rhino]

.....All women on the jury....Trayvon's mom just testified that it was her son screaming....if it were me, I would not want to leave it to chance. Whether my burden or not, I would go for proving I was justified in pulling the trigger, or at least get as close to proving that as I possibly could....

.....The only thing that would change my bottom line, which is virtually identical to the bottom line above, is if the jury overlooks the partisan hype, emotionalism and manipulations, and follows the law. I guess we wouldn't know that for sure unless at least one agreed to be interviewed after the verdict is read, but I think even short of that happenstance, that it can be assumed that they either understood FL law on the justifiable use of force, remained adherent to the "reasonable man in fear of great bodily injury or death" doctrine, or well-understood the constitutional axiom of reasonable doubt if they come back with a not guilty verdict. At least one of those three things are present in this case (I think all three are), and any one that they determine to be factual, should lead to a not guilty verdict....

You highlight what concerns me about all this. As you stated, Zimmerman isn't required to prove he was justified in pulling the trigger. The law states the prosecution must prove he WASN'T. The problem is, will the jury properly understand that and take it into account? I don't know how much leeway Florida allows to counsel, but it's usually the job of the judge to explain the law to the jury, not the job of counsel, so I'm not sure if Zimmerman's attorney would be able to press that point home in court. It's obviously grounds for appeal if that isn't adequately explained to the jury, but what would Zimmerman have to suffer through while awaiting such an appeal? Not a good prospect.
.
Please pardon my cherry picking of quotes.

 

[BluesStringer]

You highlight what concerns me about all this. As you stated, Zimmerman isn't required to prove he was justified in pulling the trigger. The law states the prosecution must prove he WASN'T. The problem is, will the jury properly understand that and take it into account? I don't know how much leeway Florida allows to counsel, but it's usually the job of the judge to explain the law to the jury, not the job of counsel, so I'm not sure if Zimmerman's attorney would be able to press that point home in court. It's obviously grounds for appeal if that isn't adequately explained to the jury, but what would Zimmerman have to suffer through while awaiting such an appeal? Not a good prospect.
.
Please pardon my cherry picking of quotes.

No pardoning needed at all. It's an important aspect of this trial, especially in light of the judge's immediate denial of O'Mara's motion for Judgment of Acquittal before he even reached his chair to sit down. I am very nervous about her ability to properly and objectively instruct the jury. She has seemed openly hostile to the defense to me. Hopefully, the witness list for the defense will solve that (potential?) problem in the jury's mind no matter how the judge delivers their instructions. We'll start getting an inkling for that starting in about 12 hours from now.

Blues

 

[Stengun]

Howdy BC1,

All they have to do is tell the story right. And pick a jury that they can spin. I'm a lousy juror. I won't bite and I won't render a verdict where I believe I've been duped.

Welcome to Team Martin!

There's two team at play, Team George and Team Martin.

Team George has been duped into believing every word that a convicted criminal and known a proven liar says. This doesn't make any sense to me since we already know that George is a liar and will have other people to lie for him in court.

Team Martin believes that an unarmed 17yo boy did not have to die that night.

Pretty simple.

Paul

 

[Firefighterchen]

Howdy BC1,



Welcome to Team Martin!

There's two team at play, Team George and Team Martin.

Team George has been duped into believing every word that a convicted criminal and known a proven liar says. This doesn't make any sense to me since we already know that George is a liar and will have other people to lie for him in court.

Team Martin believes that an unarmed 17yo boy did not have to die that night.

Pretty simple.

Paul

You're really that dense to think BC1 meant that for team Martin?

 

[Rhino]

You're really that dense to think BC1 meant that for team Martin?

You really have to ask him if he's dense? Have you read his posts? The only thing that shocks me more than the idiocy of what he posts here is the probability that people as dense as him may actually vote and may actually own guns. Scary.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You really have to ask him if he's dense? Have you read his posts? The only thing that shocks me more than the idiocy of what he posts here is the probability that people as dense as him may actually vote and may actually own guns. Scary.

Rhetorical question. I feel it's more saddening than it is scary.

 

[BC1]

You're really that dense to think BC1 meant that for team Martin?

Definitely not for team Martin.

Recap of today July 9, 2013

TM's marijuana use comes into play. I personally don't feel it's relevant but it's in. Now GZ takes prescription meds for ADHD. Should those be admissible? I think not. They are prescription meds taken under supervision of a doctor and should be protected by HIPAA. If he is not prohibited from carrying a weapon purely by virtue of those medications they are irrelevant.

Each side claims it's their client screaming. But no one is connecting obvious dots here. Witness number one on the scene testified he saw Martin on top. How many of us believe the guy on bottom is winning the fight while the guy on top, instead of running away, screams. And have any of us ever seen an aggressor straddling and beating the tar out of someone while screaming bloody-murder for help? Makes zero sense. The 911 call has consistent screaming up until the gunshot is heard. What can we deduce from that? First, whoever is screaming is getting beat-up or is panicked with fear for life and limb. There's a gunshot and precisely at that time the witness sees Martin on top. Unless they switched places (doubtful) the first witness' timing tells us who was the aggressor immediately before the gunshot. Set the witness statements against the timing in the 911 call between the screams and the shot. Everything before witness number one appears on the scene is pure speculation... word against word... circumstantial.

Two police officers present the first time Tracy Martin heard the 911 call testified he said it didn't sound like Tray. Now Tracy Martin says he never said that. We then must assume two police officers committed perjury for no reason... they have no stake in the outcome. They have no motive to lie.

Zimmerman's boxing coach testified that George couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Called him a horrible fighter. Apparently GZ can't defend himself against a physical attack very well.

In reading the text messages TM had sent out over the preceding months, Tm talks like a "gansta." If you look, act and talk like a gansta you'll be interpreted as one by the common public. TM embraced the gansta life... even the snap-in gold teeth. Nuff said. people... get hold of your kids and slap the gansta out of them. If my kid rapped I'd rap him.

This whole thing is a cluster ----. As usual the pundits have no knowledge of guns, self-defense or the street. And I sometimes wear a GLOCK hoodie at the range on a brisk day. This isn't about race. It isn't about a hoodie. It isn't about marijuana, school suspensions or GZ's grades in college. It's purely about self-defense. Judge that and that only.

 

[K7lvo]

You're really that dense to think BC1 meant that for team Martin?

Stengun is either as dumb as a post and really believes the BS he's pushing, or he's dumb as a rock and thinks that we'll believe the BS he's pushing. My apologies to posts and rocks...

 

[SR40c]

Stengun is either as dumb as a post and really believes the BS he's pushing, or he's dumb as a rock and thinks that we'll believe the BS he's pushing. My apologies to posts and rocks...

Just trying to figure out which previously banned troll Stengun is...

 

[BluesStringer]

Just trying to figure out which previously banned troll Stengun is...

That crossed my mind too, but then I realized that all the previously banned trolls I could think of were at least smart enough not to sign their posts, "pretty simple Paul."