|
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 July 06 2013 04:45 Kaitlin wrote:
Does anything O'Mara is arguing right now really matter ? I mean, is there a chance in hell that the Judge hasn't already decided how she's going to rule, despite what either attorney argues ?
No, it won't matter. The judge already knows what she's going to do. She knows the standards as well as anyone.
|
On July 06 2013 04:45 Kaitlin wrote:
Does anything O'Mara is arguing right now really matter ? I mean, is there a chance in hell that the Judge hasn't already decided how she's going to rule, despite what either attorney argues ?
he has to make the argument for appeal; dont make it, you waive it. as far as convincing the judge, she has probably already made up her mind since she has been listening to all of the evidence and knew this motion was coming.
despite what tv shows and movies represent, oral argument is one of the least important parts of a lawyer's jobs.
|
On July 06 2013 04:43 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. What evidence is that exactly?
Or perhaps the photos showing blood coming from zimmermans nose and the back of the head.
|
On July 06 2013 04:45 Taidanii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:43 L3gendary wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. What evidence is that exactly? Well, eye witness testimony from Mr Good, of course. Who clearly saw Trayvon mount Zimmerman and repeatedly rain down heavy arm motions in the direction of his face
That doesn't mean he instigated the fight...
|
Goddamn I hope she acquits right here.
This case has been pointless except to show that the prosecution never had a case.
|
On July 06 2013 04:45 Taidanii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:43 L3gendary wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. What evidence is that exactly? Well, eye witness testimony from Mr Good, of course. Who clearly saw Trayvon mount Zimmerman and repeatedly rain down heavy arm motions in the direction of his face
That's not necessarily the beginning of the altercation though. We just have to take Zimmerman's word for it.
|
On July 06 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:45 Kaitlin wrote:
Does anything O'Mara is arguing right now really matter ? I mean, is there a chance in hell that the Judge hasn't already decided how she's going to rule, despite what either attorney argues ? he has to make the argument for appeal; dont make it, you waive it. as far as convincing the judge, she has probably already made up her mind since she has been listening to all of the evidence and knew this motion was coming. despite what tv shows and movies represent, oral argument is one of the least important parts of a lawyer's jobs.
Yeah, the rule that the defense must move for a directed verdict or waive appellate rights is stupid.
|
the only evidence as to who instigated the fight was jeantel. and that was the conversation between trayvon and zimmerman. nobody knows who threw the first punch, or even if zimmerman threw any punch.
john good came in during the middle of the fight. he doesnt know how the fight started.
|
On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict.
Just to be clear there is evidence otherwise. RJ's testimony is contrary to GZ's assertions of the events, you don't have to believe it but the evidence does exist.
|
On July 06 2013 04:47 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:45 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:43 L3gendary wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. It's the only actual evidence of the conflict at all. There is no evidence stating that zimmerman instigated a conflict. Would a What evidence is that exactly? Well, eye witness testimony from Mr Good, of course. Who clearly saw Trayvon mount Zimmerman and repeatedly rain down heavy arm motions in the direction of his face That doesn't mean he instigated the fight...
It's the only actual evidence of the conflict at all. There is no evidence stating that zimmerman instigated a conflict.
|
This is a good oral argument by O'Mara, regardless of whether the judge rules in his favor.
|
On July 06 2013 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. Just to be clear there is evidence otherwise. RJ's testimony is contrary to GZ's assertions of the events, you don't have to believe it but the evidence does exist.
The girl that doesn't know what racism is? The girl that stated "I dont think thats racist" when speaking about "creepy ass cracker"?
Also, she was simply on the phone with him. If she truly thought someone was about to kill her friend she would have called the police.
|
she can easily throw out the murder 2 charge and let them proceed on manslaughter.
|
jesus, the guys who went and got a gun and came back to kill another wasnt sufficient for murder 2???
|
On July 06 2013 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
jesus, the guys who went and got a gun and came back to kill another wasnt sufficient for murder 2???
If the charge was murder 1 it probably would have gone with a conviction
|
On July 06 2013 04:51 Taidanii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. Just to be clear there is evidence otherwise. RJ's testimony is contrary to GZ's assertions of the events, you don't have to believe it but the evidence does exist. The girl that doesn't know what racism is? The girl that stated "I dont think thats racist" when speaking about "creepy ass cracker"? Also, she was simply on the phone with him. If she truly thought someone was about to kill her friend she would have called the police.
First off, there are reams of thought that will tell you that statement isn't racist. (this could be a result of different operating understandings of what 'racism' is).
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture but it is very common in minority communities for the thought of calling the police for 'help' to be the last thing you would do.
Merely testifying in a case like this could come with significant social consequences righteous or not.
|
On July 06 2013 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
she can easily throw out the murder 2 charge and let them proceed on manslaughter.
That's probably what "should" happen, but this case is being broadcast on national TV. The Judge is going to "play it safe" the whole way through. Your view on what the "safe" route is, will dictate how you think it'll go.
|
On July 06 2013 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:51 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon? no So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking? Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force? You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict. These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict. Just to be clear there is evidence otherwise. RJ's testimony is contrary to GZ's assertions of the events, you don't have to believe it but the evidence does exist. The girl that doesn't know what racism is? The girl that stated "I dont think thats racist" when speaking about "creepy ass cracker"? Also, she was simply on the phone with him. If she truly thought someone was about to kill her friend she would have called the police. First off, there are reams of thought that will tell you that statement isn't racist. (this could be a result of different operating understandings of what 'racism' is). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture but it is very common in minority communities for the thought of calling the police for 'help' to be the last thing you would do. Merely testifying in a case like this could come with significant social consequences righteous or not.
I am not white. I think it's cute that you simply assumed that just because of my statements. "cracker" is a racial slur. The fact that an individual truly thinks the only racist comments are those that are directed at their race alone (presumably what RJ believes as to her knowledge of racial slurs) gives them no credibility. She can't read, she has no clear definition of racism, so how can she testify to the belief of racial profiling? She has no credibility, and was not present for the conflict. All of it is circumstantial and leaves reasonable doubt
|
LOL this guy. This is gonna be terrible to listen to.
|
"pointing a gun at someone and shooting them is evidence of ill will."
guess there is no such thing as manslaughter.
what a stupid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
