Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 11:42:53 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 149033 times)
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #615 on: July 03, 2012, 12:41:41 pm »

Injuries really don't even matter that much. Zimmerman's story is that his gun became exposed and Martin reached for it. That should be enough for any juror to have reasonable doubt regarding murder (especially when combined with the statement "you are gonna die tonight"), provided Zimmerman is considered trustworthy.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Basically you're taking the word of the survior as fact. George's accounts raise reasonable doubt. There's no way a jury could reasonably set their deciscion on those to "facts" alone. I'll leave you with this thought. George also said that Trayvon said,"Oh, you got me." After he was shot. What 17 year old kid says that? He was on his way home from the store. He wasn't loitering. He wasn't trespassing. He wasn't casing the joints. He was on his way home, while talking on the phone. George never makes mention of the phone. Of what happened to the flashlight he supposedly was carrying. He was facing his supposed assailant when he was supposedly struck in the nose. Yet he never mentions what happened to this flashlight during the attack.
 George's account(s) are Casey Anthony full of holes. Fortunately for him the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. He better hope he doesn't have to take the stand.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #616 on: July 03, 2012, 12:49:01 pm »

The injuries say absolutely nothing as to who initiated the confrontation.  You can start a fight and still get your ass kicked.

If Zimmerman is lying about following Martin, then a) Zimmerman's credibility is diminished and b) you have to ask what his motivation for lying was.  Was Zimmerman lying because he's a pathological liar and just enjoys lying for its own sake, or was he lying to hide something?  If he was lying to hide something, what possible things could he be trying to hide?  Maybe I'm unimaginative, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options for "things to hide" besides initiating the confrontation.

Remember, self-defense cannot apply in a fight that you start.
Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #617 on: July 03, 2012, 01:02:07 pm »

I couldn't disagree with you more. Basically you're taking the word of the survior as fact. George's accounts raise reasonable doubt. There's no way a jury could reasonably set their deciscion on those to "facts" alone. I'll leave you with this thought. George also said that Trayvon said,"Oh, you got me." After he was shot. What 17 year old kid says that? He was on his way home from the store. He wasn't loitering. He wasn't trespassing. He wasn't casing the joints. He was on his way home, while talking on the phone. George never makes mention of the phone. Of what happened to the flashlight he supposedly was carrying. He was facing his supposed assailant when he was supposedly struck in the nose. Yet he never mentions what happened to this flashlight during the attack.
 George's account(s) are Casey Anthony full of holes. Fortunately for him the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. He better hope he doesn't have to take the stand.

I'm not taking it as fact, but I am taking it as the law says. The burdon of proof is on the prosecution. George Zimmerman has to prove nothing. He just has to create reasonable doubt and so far I have it. It may change if there are parts of the story that are not public yet but as of right now, there is reasonable doubt which equates to aquital in our legal system
Logged
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #618 on: July 03, 2012, 02:13:49 pm »

I'm not taking it as fact, but I am taking it as the law says. The burdon of proof is on the prosecution. George Zimmerman has to prove nothing. He just has to create reasonable doubt and so far I have it. It may change if there are parts of the story that are not public yet but as of right now, there is reasonable doubt which equates to aquital in our legal system

So at this time. You could reasonably conclude that George's story holds up?
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #619 on: July 03, 2012, 02:19:20 pm »

So at this time. You could reasonably conclude that George's story holds up?

Could you reasonably conclude that it doesn't with the facts at hand ?
Logged
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #620 on: July 03, 2012, 02:36:51 pm »

The injuries say absolutely nothing as to who initiated the confrontation.  You can start a fight and still get your ass kicked.

If Zimmerman is lying about following Martin, then a) Zimmerman's credibility is diminished and b) you have to ask what his motivation for lying was.  Was Zimmerman lying because he's a pathological liar and just enjoys lying for its own sake, or was he lying to hide something?  If he was lying to hide something, what possible things could he be trying to hide?  Maybe I'm unimaginative, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options for "things to hide" besides initiating the confrontation.

Remember, self-defense cannot apply in a fight that you start.
Well please inform me what evidence the prosecution plans to use to convict then? If the prosecutions sole case relies on the testimony of Zimmerman then all the defense has to do is NOT call Zimmerman to the stand to testify and case won.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #621 on: July 03, 2012, 02:51:58 pm »

So at this time. You could reasonably conclude that George's story holds up?

I can conclude that I have not seen any evidence to disprove it so far and that is his only responsibility. It sounds to me like you are the type of person who I would never want on my jury. The proof rests with the prosecution. Show me something to prove murder and we will revisit my position.
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #622 on: July 03, 2012, 02:54:30 pm »

Well please inform me what evidence the prosecution plans to use to convict then? If the prosecutions sole case relies on the testimony of Zimmerman then all the defense has to do is NOT call Zimmerman to the stand to testify and case won.

Go back and look at the 1st bail hearing and see what Dale Gilbreath the lead investigator states under oath. He just can't change those answers. This boils down to who started the physical confrontation and they don't know , they have a hunch....
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #623 on: July 03, 2012, 02:58:09 pm »

I can conclude that I have not seen any evidence to disprove it so far and that is his only responsibility. It sounds to me like you are the type of person who I would never want on my jury. The proof rests with the prosecution. Show me something to prove murder and we will revisit my position.

I concur with this statement. If we put aside the "race card" outrage and hyped up "race card" media coverage and go with just the facts that we have at this point in time, there is no real proof of anything illegal. Maybe in light of some new evidence that could change.....
Logged
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #624 on: July 03, 2012, 09:02:13 pm »

I can conclude that I have not seen any evidence to disprove it so far and that is his only responsibility. It sounds to me like you are the type of person who I would never want on my jury. The proof rests with the prosecution. Show me something to prove murder and we will revisit my position.

I would actually enjoy serving jury duty with you. You seem to have an open mind. Its obvious that you believe there is a reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt. I also have an equal reasonable doubt as to his innocence. His words (in his 911 call & his re-enactment) do not mesh with a key 911 call from a witness. Zimmerman claims he was beaten within an inch of his life, yet Trayvon didn't have injuries to his hands consistent with that account.

I asked if you could reasonably conclude if Zimmerman's story holds up. In your eyes, it does. In mine, it doesn't.
Logged
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #625 on: July 03, 2012, 10:49:02 pm »

Go back and look at the 1st bail hearing and see what Dale Gilbreath the lead investigator states under oath. He just can't change those answers. This boils down to who started the physical confrontation and they don't know , they have a hunch....
Well after reading what he said, I don't think the prosecution's case relies on who started it at all. They don't know and they don't care. What they are going to base their prosecution on is that Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening and therefore he had no reason to use deadly force regardless of who was the agressor. That makes sense to me because it doesn't rely on Zimmerman's testimony at all, it relies on the physical evidence which they can present without Zimmerman taking the stand. If Zimmerman does decide to take the stand then they can try to punch holes in his testimony. I still think the physical evidence is the key to this trial, not who confronted whom.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #626 on: July 03, 2012, 11:31:12 pm »

Well please inform me what evidence the prosecution plans to use to convict then? If the prosecutions sole case relies on the testimony of Zimmerman then all the defense has to do is NOT call Zimmerman to the stand to testify and case won.
Not sure that would hold up so well.  If Zimmerman makes no statement, then the prosecution says, "Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue Martin and confronted him when he found him."  Without Zimmerman's own testimony, what alternative explanation is there for why Zimmerman got out of the car?
Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #627 on: July 04, 2012, 12:14:25 am »

Not sure that would hold up so well.  If Zimmerman makes no statement, then the prosecution says, "Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue Martin and confronted him when he found him."  Without Zimmerman's own testimony, what alternative explanation is there for why Zimmerman got out of the car?
It's not a forum where you can just get up and talk to the jury and tell them whatever you want. The prosecution has to call witnesses and ask them questions so they can testify to what they know, but the prosecution cannot call Zimmerman because you don't have to testify at your own trial if you don't want to. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand, what is the prosecution going to do? Who are they going to call to testify as to what he did or didn't do? Are there any witnesses to him getting out of the car and pursuing Martin or confronting Martin? No one can testify to what Zimmerman said because it's hearsay, it has to come straight from Zimmerman or what he said can't be used. And you can't bring it up in summation either because you would have had to bring it up during the trial. In short, if Zimmerman doesn't testify, then anything he said is inadmissable evidence at trial (with some exceptions of course). For the most part they can only bring any of it up if Zimmerman decides to testify and they'll only know if he's going to testify or not after the prosecution rests it's case. The prosecution goes first and then the defense. Zimmerman will probably be the last witness to testify if he testifies at all which I suspect he may not to avoid having to testify to anything he has said. If their whole case was based on what Zimmerman said then effectively they have nothing to present during that portion of the trial. The defense could simply rest and the trial would be over because the defense would have nothing to defend against.

No the prosecution has to present a case based on something other than Zimmerman's testimony, like the physical evidence for example and then hope that Zimmerman decides to testify and then they can examine his testimony. Now I have not been following the case that closely, so if there are witnesses to the crime that can testify to what they saw, that would change things considerably, but my understanding is there are no witnesses to the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin other than Zimmerman.

After reading a bit I see that there are actually several witnesses but none of them really know who initiated the confrontation it would seem. So I would imagine the prosecutions case rests on the testimony of those witnesses and the physical evidence, unless Zimmerman decides to testify.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 01:03:20 am by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #628 on: July 04, 2012, 07:42:10 am »

Not sure that would hold up so well.  If Zimmerman makes no statement, then the prosecution says, "Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue Martin and confronted him when he found him."  Without Zimmerman's own testimony, what alternative explanation is there for why Zimmerman got out of the car?

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Does George have to make a deposition before trial? Wouldn't his re-enactment or interrogation with police be admissible in court? From my understanding, George not taking the stand doesn't necessarily work against him. Its not just a chance to tell his side. It keeps the prosecution from poking holes in it. Because, if I'm the defense attorney I'm trying to avoid that.
Logged
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #629 on: July 04, 2012, 08:07:08 am »

Well after reading what he said, I don't think the prosecution's case relies on who started it at all. They don't know and they don't care. What they are going to base their prosecution on is that Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening and therefore he had no reason to use deadly force regardless of who was the agressor. That makes sense to me because it doesn't rely on Zimmerman's testimony at all, it relies on the physical evidence which they can present without Zimmerman taking the stand. If Zimmerman does decide to take the stand then they can try to punch holes in his testimony. I still think the physical evidence is the key to this trial, not who confronted whom.

I agree with you on that. Unless the prosecution has a witness that saw the whole thing, they can't really use "the aggressor" angle. Its 2nd degree murder. They don't have to show a motive or prove intent. They basically have to show that George's actions caused the unjustified  death of Trayvon. The defense knows this. That's why they are already trying the angle of "justified fear". That's why they are emphasizing George's injuries. Both at a bond hearing. They don't focus on why George got out of his vehicle. They focus on the end result. Can't fault the defense for doing their job. Its only a preview of what's to come.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines