|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Culpable homicide is defined as causing the death of a human being,
By means of an unlawful act;
By criminal negligence;
By causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
By wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
Pretty sure you could make the argument for either criminal negligence or even causing fear which resulted in his death.
|
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal.
|
On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal.
You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations.
|
On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
|
On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations.
If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history.
|
On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol
i get your point, but its a reasonable person standard. it doesnt matter that zimmerman is a coward, it matters whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would be a "coward."
|
On June 26 2013 03:53 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations. If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history.
People said the same thing during the OJ Simpson trials ya know.
On June 26 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol i get your point, but its a reasonable person standard. it doesnt matter that zimmerman is a coward, it matters whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would be a "coward."
Well sure, but it certainly doesn't hurt to make it easier to believe that Zimmerman was afraid for his life 
|
On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations.
I think you're overestimating the value of courtroom histrionics. And anyway it's not up to the defense to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they do not have a case. All they have is the race card, and the jury isn't likely to fall for that.
|
Man don't ever underestimate the race card, that shit is like Kryptonite to guilty white folk.
|
On June 26 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:53 Yorke wrote:On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations. If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history. People said the same thing during the OJ Simpson trials ya know.
Actually, the OJ case was opposite. The OJ case had a mountain of evidence and it was unbelieveable (to many) that the jury acquitted. The Zimmerman case has little evidence and a mountain to climb to fulfill a very high burden of proof. It's the exact opposite. In other words, theoretically, in this case, the defense shouldn't even have to put on a case, as the sufficiency of the evidence may not reach its burden.
|
On June 26 2013 03:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 Yorke wrote:On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations. If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history. People said the same thing during the OJ Simpson trials ya know. Actually, the OJ case was opposite. The OJ case had a mountain of evidence and it was unbelieveable (to many) that the jury acquitted. The Zimmerman case has little evidence and a mountain to climb to fulfill a very high burden of proof. It's the exact opposite. In other words, theoretically, in this case, the defense shouldn't even have to put on a case, as the sufficiency of the evidence may not reach its burden.
The point is that making prescribed estimations as to the outcome of a trial based on the "facts" before they've been presented is oftentimes proven a poor strategy.
|
On June 26 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:53 Yorke wrote:On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations. If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history. People said the same thing during the OJ Simpson trials ya know. Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol i get your point, but its a reasonable person standard. it doesnt matter that zimmerman is a coward, it matters whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would be a "coward." Well sure, but it certainly doesn't hurt to make it easier to believe that Zimmerman was afraid for his life
i need to backtrack anyways. they have to show that zimmerman is actually a coward, and that a reasonable person would also have been a coward. ;-)
|
On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
|
On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
|
On June 26 2013 04:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:58 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 Yorke wrote:On June 26 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:42 Freddybear wrote:
The defense is not really going to have to prove anything in this case. The police already did the work of showing valid self-defense. All Z's defense needs to do is call them to testify about their investigation and the facts will be clear enough. The prosecution will have to impeach the police testimony as to their determination of the facts in the case. If that isn't enough to convince the jury there are already a long list of reversible errors committed by the judge(s), so even if Z is found guilty they will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal. You're basically ignoring the entire role of presentation, as though the facts will somehow be objectively displayed for all to see, when in reality the manner in which the defense examines investigators will highly influence the shape of the "facts" communicated to the jury (likewise with the prosecution). And, given some of the defense's odd choices in terms of trial advocacy strategies, it is definitely not a given that they will slam dunk their examinations. If the defence drop the ball on this one they'd have to be the most incompetent lawyers in history. People said the same thing during the OJ Simpson trials ya know. Actually, the OJ case was opposite. The OJ case had a mountain of evidence and it was unbelieveable (to many) that the jury acquitted. The Zimmerman case has little evidence and a mountain to climb to fulfill a very high burden of proof. It's the exact opposite. In other words, theoretically, in this case, the defense shouldn't even have to put on a case, as the sufficiency of the evidence may not reach its burden. The point is that making prescribed estimations as to the outcome of a trial based on the "facts" before they've been presented is oftentimes proven a poor strategy.
The point is that the police already made the original call about self defense and they have all the facts which the defense needs, so the prosecution has to impeach the police testimony. Now that is going to require a tremendous leap for the jury. Instead of the defendant's word against the cops this time it's the prosecution witnesses (not exactly the most credible people ever called to the stand) versus the cops.
|
On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:
which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
Insight into your context ...
|
On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think.
Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not.
edit: about the attourney
Is the autopsy not evidence in the USA? Honestly asking.
|
On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not.
did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face?
|
On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well.. Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest. Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not.
He can't even remember what he did to Travyon's body, no telling what he did to himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-Head-Injury1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/12/george-zimmerman-bloody-1203.jpg)
