|
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 08:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 08:43 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 26 2013 08:22 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself. Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury. If he changes his statement now his entire story falls apart. What we have instead is a case of him getting his ass kicked as opposed to a life threatening brutalization. Again it would still be self defense but why the need to lie if that's the case? A person came after me with a baseball bat once (case of mistaken identity), I was close to my vehicle and as an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I have bear spray in my truck. I used it on the man and he went down, was hurt pretty badly by it. I was told when purchasing it that if I ever used it on a person it was assault with a deadly weapon. I was 100% truthful with the officer I never lied and said he hit me with the bat before I sprayed him just that I didn't think I could outrun him, and believed he was going to use the bat on me. The man in question said he intended to scare me, which the judge ruled was inconsistent with his actions as he agreed that I was already retreating away. In the end the judge ruled that we were both guilty of a criminal act although mine was under imminent threat/ danger and there was precedence already of people using bear spray to defend themselves the same way I did. So It was up to me how I wanted to proceed, (Judge, Prosecution and Defenses words) so in private chambers with the other man lawyers present and judge, I asked if we could just view it as a wash and forget about it. This was deemed acceptable by all parties. In this case no one lied well actually the man who attacked me sort of did but the point is there is no need to lie to make your story sound better if you are already innocent. If Zimmerman's story was that Treyvon was beating him up and he was scared for his life and he probably was at that point. Then that's what his story should be, not that his head was slammed against the concrete repeatedly which doesn't seem to be consistent with his injuries. I recognize that everyone wants their story to be as justifiable as possible and in Zimmerman's shoes he really needs to be justified in shooting Treyvon. However, you can be in immediate danger / believe someone is going to kill you without arguing that the sidewalk was Treyvon's weapon. If your going to make that argument you better make sure forensics (Ie. Blood spatter, injuries sustained, and your interaction with the body) are consistent with your telling of the events. Some people are dismissing Zimmerman's statements about what he did with Treyvon's hands as not important. Well its actually really important, as Zimmerman was eluding to looking for a weapon in Treyvon's hands when he splayed them. Zimmerman was trying to paint his situation in the direst straights possible by saying his head was being smashed off the sidewalk and that he thought Treyvon had a weapon which is why he moved his hands. What the evidence is showing is that his head was not struck repeatedly off the sidewalk and that he didn't splay his hands when checking for a weapon. I think he knew full well after the shooting how terrible it looked and said those things to attempt to justify his actions. Again this doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense, it just looks really bad. Your choice in how to proceed ? Are you talking about a civil matter ? The way it's presented, it seems like you against the bat guy, not you being prosecuted by the government. Anyways, what happened with Zimmerman is what happened, whether there is evidence to substantiate what happened is not the world we live in. Ideally, what happened would be in a well-lit area while being recorded on video. But it wasn't. We have imperfect information, witnesses have imperfect recollection, etc. Not remembering everything accurately is very differently from lying. He's talking about lying. He wasn't saying that his case was the same as this case.
Well, in a civil case, he would be required to testify, however Zimmerman will not be required to testify, so it makes a difference. However, this isn't really an issue worth arguing over for long.
|
On June 26 2013 08:59 Kaitlin wrote:
dAPhREAk,
How is the "self-defense" argument applied ? Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense, or does Zimmerman have some burden to overcome in asserting that claim ?
in Florida:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
zimmerman doesnt have to put on a defense, and i think its likely he will file a motion for directed verdict immediately after the prosecution rests its own case.
other jurisdictions are much different.
|
On June 26 2013 09:01 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Or.. or... you could be so hard up on trying to suck daphreak into a pointless argument when you don't even understand basic legal terminology and take no effort into educating yourself. you can argue your positions but you've really added nothing to the topic at hand while daphreak has maintained, updated and kept this thread thriving for quite a long time. If you feel you're being brushed off by everyone it's not because they think you're right, it's because you're so wrong you aren't worth the time to elaborate.
No, it's quite clear he doesn't have a leg to stand on and I am correct.
If I were wrong he would be able to say why.
|
On June 26 2013 08:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:43 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 26 2013 08:22 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself. Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury. If he changes his statement now his entire story falls apart. What we have instead is a case of him getting his ass kicked as opposed to a life threatening brutalization. Again it would still be self defense but why the need to lie if that's the case? A person came after me with a baseball bat once (case of mistaken identity), I was close to my vehicle and as an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I have bear spray in my truck. I used it on the man and he went down, was hurt pretty badly by it. I was told when purchasing it that if I ever used it on a person it was assault with a deadly weapon. I was 100% truthful with the officer I never lied and said he hit me with the bat before I sprayed him just that I didn't think I could outrun him, and believed he was going to use the bat on me. The man in question said he intended to scare me, which the judge ruled was inconsistent with his actions as he agreed that I was already retreating away. In the end the judge ruled that we were both guilty of a criminal act although mine was under imminent threat/ danger and there was precedence already of people using bear spray to defend themselves the same way I did. So It was up to me how I wanted to proceed, (Judge, Prosecution and Defenses words) so in private chambers with the other man lawyers present and judge, I asked if we could just view it as a wash and forget about it. This was deemed acceptable by all parties. In this case no one lied well actually the man who attacked me sort of did but the point is there is no need to lie to make your story sound better if you are already innocent. If Zimmerman's story was that Treyvon was beating him up and he was scared for his life and he probably was at that point. Then that's what his story should be, not that his head was slammed against the concrete repeatedly which doesn't seem to be consistent with his injuries. I recognize that everyone wants their story to be as justifiable as possible and in Zimmerman's shoes he really needs to be justified in shooting Treyvon. However, you can be in immediate danger / believe someone is going to kill you without arguing that the sidewalk was Treyvon's weapon. If your going to make that argument you better make sure forensics (Ie. Blood spatter, injuries sustained, and your interaction with the body) are consistent with your telling of the events. Some people are dismissing Zimmerman's statements about what he did with Treyvon's hands as not important. Well its actually really important, as Zimmerman was eluding to looking for a weapon in Treyvon's hands when he splayed them. Zimmerman was trying to paint his situation in the direst straights possible by saying his head was being smashed off the sidewalk and that he thought Treyvon had a weapon which is why he moved his hands. What the evidence is showing is that his head was not struck repeatedly off the sidewalk and that he didn't splay his hands when checking for a weapon. I think he knew full well after the shooting how terrible it looked and said those things to attempt to justify his actions. Again this doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense, it just looks really bad. Your choice in how to proceed ? Are you talking about a civil matter ? The way it's presented, it seems like you against the bat guy, not you being prosecuted by the government. Anyways, what happened with Zimmerman is what happened, whether there is evidence to substantiate what happened is not the world we live in. Ideally, what happened would be in a well-lit area while being recorded on video. But it wasn't. We have imperfect information, witnesses have imperfect recollection, etc. Not remembering everything accurately is very differently from lying.
When it came to the guy with the bat, I could have pursued the case and we both would have had criminal charges brought against us. Assault cases where weapons are involved are not a civil matter here. Civil happens after criminal, I could have pursued the cased legally, I probably would have won and been cleared of all criminal charges. But the man with the bat could have went after me for damages in a civil suit. He would have probably got 6 months in jail as he didn't actually strike me, but I would then be liable for lost wages and medical expenses caused by my use of bear spray on him. So it was left to me to decide by my lawyers, his lawyers, and the judge how I wanted to proceed. In this case I said lets call it a wash, and it was agreed that I would drop all criminal charges he would drop similar charges on me and we would both agree to no civil litigation against each-other regarding the incident. The judge liked it because it saved on legal resources used and everyone got what they wanted which was for it to be over with.
In this case, a civil suit was already brought against the HOA, we also have more information then just Zimmerman's testimony which is contradictory to the scene were presented with. He didn't splay the kids hands to check for a weapon like he stated he did. This is very important because doing so communicates that Zimmerman was concerned that Treyvon had a weapon. If he was concerned that Treyvon had a weapon then he is more justified in shooting him dead. We don't have transference of blood to the sidewalk or any other surface which would be consistent with having his head slammed into it repeatedly. If his head wasn't being slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly we have less justification for shooting him dead. These are 2 very important factors when deciding the necessity of shooting someone to death. I wont say its not self defense what I will say, is that he needs to fucking tell the truth before this bites him in the ass moreso then it already has.
|
On June 26 2013 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:59 Kaitlin wrote:
dAPhREAk,
How is the "self-defense" argument applied ? Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense, or does Zimmerman have some burden to overcome in asserting that claim ? in Florida: Show nested quote +If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. zimmerman doesnt have to put on a defense, and i think its likely he will file a motion for directed verdict immediately after the prosecution rests its own case. other jurisdictions are much different.
Well, that's gonna be pretty difficult to overcome for the prosecution. I would expect the motion for directed verdict, but that's because it's pretty much standard procedure in every trial, so much so that the judge will even prompt the attorney to make the motion.
|
On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct.
Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion:
In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial.
In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point.
Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding.
|
On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding.
You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with the people I was arguing against.
The people arguing against me were asserting that blood transfer any time a head hits a sidewalk is some sort of truism that needs no evidence. As I pointed out, they were using their imaginations to make a leap of logic.
It's possible that blood transfer usually doesn't happen on the first blow due to the wound needing time to bleed. We don't know, as nobody has given evidence either way.
|
On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding.
Frankly, and looking at the posts on the subject, neither DaPhreak nor bugser are analyzing this issue properly. This isn't an issue of admissibility. It is predominantly an issue of the weight that a finder of fact (the jury) should afford the fact that there doesn't seem to have been blood on the ground where Martin allegedly slammed Zimmerman's head. This is exactly what bugser is arguing -- albeit without the proper legal framework.
|
On June 26 2013 09:57 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding. You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with the people I was arguing against. The people arguing against me were asserting that blood transfer any time a head hits a sidewalk is some sort of truism that needs no evidence. As I pointed out, they were using their imaginations to make a leap of logic. It's possible that blood transfer usually doesn't happen on the first blow due to the wound needing time to bleed. We don't know, as nobody has given evidence either way.
I am disagreeing with you that something like that needs to be proven now (frankly from personal anecdotes I'm closer to their camp than to yours, the two times I wounded my head by simply falling somewhere in my house I definitely left bloodstains behind, one carpet still has that friggin stain 3 years later). If the prosecution wants to attack Zimmerman with this (figuratively) they would not cite a study, they'd bring in a reliable expert and he would back that statement. There is no "evidence" to give in this (except for the lack of bloodstain on the ground, if the crime scene was processed properly that is "evidence" (as far as lack of something can be considered evidence obviously)).
On the other hand the argument for the defense is equally obvious, they will if this proves to be important in the trial, either argue that the crime scene was not properly processed (something we simply cannot judge, in all honesty I'm not even sure if it was done at all since I didn't read anything regarding that) or they will argue some position close to yours ("didn't start to bleed until later" etc.).
Simply put anything except "was there a bloodstain" is not relevant for this thread unless you or someone else thinks they are an expert on this specific issue. There almost certainly will be one of those at the trial if the prosecution wants to make this point.
You demand a level of proof for this thread which would not be required in front of judge and jury that is why daPhreak was so annoyed with you.
|
Man, I'm a little confused now. I just watched the beginning of HLN's After Dark and they showed the Zimmerman video where he explains what happened at the scene. He described how he was walking back to his car when Trayvon's voice came from behind him. Exactly as he described it, he was walking as that neighbor described, "left to right". I don't understand given Zimmerman's explanation that I just saw why they take such issue with this left to right movement. He seems to have explained he was moving left to right in his own description.
edit:
not only that, but if there was a disturbance in a left to right direction, it would be Trayvon pursuing Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was ahead of him in this left to right direction. I'll be interested to see how this plays out as to why the defense attacked this like they did.
|
On June 26 2013 11:08 Kaitlin wrote:
Man, I'm a little confused now. I just watched the beginning of HLN's After Dark and they showed the Zimmerman video where he explains what happened at the scene. He described how he was walking back to his car when Trayvon's voice came from behind him. Exactly as he described it, he was walking as that neighbor described, "left to right". I don't understand given Zimmerman's explanation that I just saw why they take such issue with this left to right movement. He seems to have explained he was moving left to right in his own description.
edit:
not only that, but if there was a disturbance in a left to right direction, it would be Trayvon pursuing Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was ahead of him in this left to right direction. I'll be interested to see how this plays out as to why the defense attacked this like they did.
In all seriousness, the defense may have jumped on it for no other reason than it is an inconsistency, and thus has the potential to damage the witnesses's credibility. Given some of the things that I have seen from the Defense so far, it could be as simple as that.
|
On June 26 2013 10:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding. Frankly, and looking at the posts on the subject, neither DaPhreak nor bugser are analyzing this issue properly. This isn't an issue of admissibility. It is predominantly an issue of the weight that a finder of fact (the jury) should afford the fact that there doesn't seem to have been blood on the ground where Martin allegedly slammed Zimmerman's head. This is exactly what bugser is arguing -- albeit without the proper legal framework.
its a relevancy inquiry; if its relevant, its legitimate evidence even without expert testimony. the "weight" of the evidence is irrelevant to whether it can be used as evidence or used in argument that his head didnt hit the concrete.
as for proving something unequivocally, even in criminal trials you are not required to prove the ultimate facts 100%, let alone impeachment evidence, which is what this is. bugser is clearly offbase, and i dont know where you are coming from either.
|
On June 26 2013 11:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 10:14 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding. Frankly, and looking at the posts on the subject, neither DaPhreak nor bugser are analyzing this issue properly. This isn't an issue of admissibility. It is predominantly an issue of the weight that a finder of fact (the jury) should afford the fact that there doesn't seem to have been blood on the ground where Martin allegedly slammed Zimmerman's head. This is exactly what bugser is arguing -- albeit without the proper legal framework. its a relevancy inquiry; if its relevant, its legitimate evidence even without expert testimony. the "weight" of the evidence is irrelevant to whether it can be used as evidence or used in argument that his head didnt hit the concrete. as for proving something unequivocally, even in criminal trials you are not required to prove the ultimate facts 100%, let alone impeachment evidence, which is what this is. bugser is clearly offbase, and i dont know where you are coming from either.
The problem is that you didn't try to understand the point that bugser was making, opting instead to read his posts with a rather uncalled-for literalism. Referring him to relevancy rules was not helpful, and not even really germane to the issue. Of course the existence or nonexistence of blood is relevant. The real issue is how important that fact is. This is really what bugser wanted to discuss. It is just that no one helped him frame his point properly. That is all that needed to be said, rather than pointing bugser to Rule 401.
|
On June 26 2013 11:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 11:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 10:14 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding. Frankly, and looking at the posts on the subject, neither DaPhreak nor bugser are analyzing this issue properly. This isn't an issue of admissibility. It is predominantly an issue of the weight that a finder of fact (the jury) should afford the fact that there doesn't seem to have been blood on the ground where Martin allegedly slammed Zimmerman's head. This is exactly what bugser is arguing -- albeit without the proper legal framework. its a relevancy inquiry; if its relevant, its legitimate evidence even without expert testimony. the "weight" of the evidence is irrelevant to whether it can be used as evidence or used in argument that his head didnt hit the concrete. as for proving something unequivocally, even in criminal trials you are not required to prove the ultimate facts 100%, let alone impeachment evidence, which is what this is. bugser is clearly offbase, and i dont know where you are coming from either. The problem is that you didn't try to understand the point that bugser was making, opting instead to read his posts with a rather uncalled-for literalism. Referring him to relevancy rules was not helpful, and not even really germane to the issue. Of course the existence or nonexistence of blood is relevant. The real issue is how important that fact is. This is really what bugser wanted to discuss. It is just that no one helped him frame his point properly. That is all that needed to be said, rather than pointing bugser to Rule 401.
frame his point properly then. because it is clearly wrong the way he has framed it; you really dont seem to dispute that it is clearly relevant and admissible evidence. and bear in mind that this is circumstantial evidence used to impeach zimmerman's characterization of the events of that night rather than proof to support the prosecutor's prima facie case.
oh, and bugser, what was your previous name before you were banned from tl.net? (just a theory)
|
On June 26 2013 11:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2013 11:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 10:14 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2013 09:48 Tula wrote:On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct. Let me give it a try before you continue to troll this discussion: In the context of law you do not need 100% proof of every single fact and point you want to make. As it says in the first wiki link you got, if something is implied strongly enough it can be taken as legally proven for this trial. In the specific argument you are trying to present you say that the prosecution would need to prove that blood transfer is guaranteed, when in fact that is not necessary. The prosecution could send in an expert witness (most likely a crime investigator for example) who would be able to say that in XY scenes he processed where someones head was bashed into a sidewalk, blood transfer happened in YX amount of cases. That would almost certainly be enough to close this specific point. Is that enough or do we need to continue this discussion? In short, yes while it might be nice if someone cited you a study and the burden of proof does lie with the prosecution the amount of information required for the purpose of this trial is significantly less than you are demanding. Frankly, and looking at the posts on the subject, neither DaPhreak nor bugser are analyzing this issue properly. This isn't an issue of admissibility. It is predominantly an issue of the weight that a finder of fact (the jury) should afford the fact that there doesn't seem to have been blood on the ground where Martin allegedly slammed Zimmerman's head. This is exactly what bugser is arguing -- albeit without the proper legal framework. its a relevancy inquiry; if its relevant, its legitimate evidence even without expert testimony. the "weight" of the evidence is irrelevant to whether it can be used as evidence or used in argument that his head didnt hit the concrete. as for proving something unequivocally, even in criminal trials you are not required to prove the ultimate facts 100%, let alone impeachment evidence, which is what this is. bugser is clearly offbase, and i dont know where you are coming from either. The problem is that you didn't try to understand the point that bugser was making, opting instead to read his posts with a rather uncalled-for literalism. Referring him to relevancy rules was not helpful, and not even really germane to the issue. Of course the existence or nonexistence of blood is relevant. The real issue is how important that fact is. This is really what bugser wanted to discuss. It is just that no one helped him frame his point properly. That is all that needed to be said, rather than pointing bugser to Rule 401. frame his point properly then. because it is clearly wrong the way he has framed it; you really dont seem to dispute that it is clearly relevant and admissible evidence. and bear in mind that this is circumstantial evidence used to impeach zimmerman's characterization of the events of that night rather than proof to support the prosecutor's prima facie case. oh, and bugser, what was your previous name before you were permanently banned from tl.net? (just a theory)
The point properly framed is this: evidence that there was no blood on the concrete does not necessarily mean that Zimmerman's head wasn't slammed on the concrete. Only the addition of evidence (likely expert evidence) showing that blood is left behind every time someone's head is slammed into the concrete would foreclose that possibility. Still, the absence of blood is still some evidence that Zimmerman's head may not have been slammed into the ground. It is up to the jury to weigh how important that absence is.
|
If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed.
Still, the absence of blood is still some evidence that Zimmerman's head may not have been slammed into the ground.
these dont really align. (bold is in original by the way.) you neither need such evidence for admissibility purposes nor for purposes of arguing that zimmerman is lying. moreover, the fact that the defense did not challenge the evidence through an argument similar to whats his name's (yet, they may have an ace up their sleeves) certainly discredits your argument that it shouldnt have significant weight for the jury.
|
On June 26 2013 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Show nested quote +Still, the absence of blood is still some evidence that Zimmerman's head may not have been slammed into the ground. these dont really align. (bold is in original by the way.) you neither need such evidence for admissibility purposes nor for purposes of arguing that zimmerman is lying. moreover, the fact that the defense did not challenge the evidence through an argument similar to whats his name's (yet, they may have an ace up their sleeves) certainly discredits your argument that it shouldnt have significant weight for the jury.
I didn't argue that it shouldn't have significant weight. I'm just pointing out what the argument is.
Again, you're conflating admissibility with weight. The evidence is clearly admissible, which is why the defense didn't move to exclude it. What they are going to do is attack the weight of the absence of blood with other evidence and arguments. I don't know how they're going to do it specifically, but possibilities include either explaining why the blood wouldn't have been there in the first place or explaining why the blood was there initially but wasn't whenever the witness testifying about the absence examined the scene.
|
He clearly had an issue with people saying the fact that there was no blood in the concrete means his had wasn't slammed into the concrete. This is the original statement he complained about.
it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant
So I do believe that his point is that there is a decent chance that his head was slammed into the ground without leaving blood, and that if you believe otherwise you should cite something more reliable than "head wounds bleed a lot". The bigger issue is why does this need to drag through multiple pages of snarky replies.
|
On June 26 2013 12:13 SKC wrote:He clearly had an issue with people saying the fact that there was no blood in the concrete means his had wasn't slammed into the concrete. This is the original statement he complained about. Show nested quote +it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant So I do believe that his point is that there is a decent chance that his head was slammed into the ground without leaving blood, and that if you believe otherwise you should cite something more reliable than "head wounds bleed a lot". The bigger issue is why does this need to drag through multiple pages of snarky replies.
Not just snarky replies. Rather uninformed, snarky replies.
|
On June 26 2013 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 12:13 SKC wrote:He clearly had an issue with people saying the fact that there was no blood in the concrete means his had wasn't slammed into the concrete. This is the original statement he complained about. it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant So I do believe that his point is that there is a decent chance that his head was slammed into the ground without leaving blood, and that if you believe otherwise you should cite something more reliable than "head wounds bleed a lot". The bigger issue is why does this need to drag through multiple pages of snarky replies. Not just snarky replies. Rather uninformed, snarky replies.
i am tempted to ask what i am uninformed about, but then the verbal diarrhea will continue to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
