|
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 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun."
The far simpler and better spin is that because Zimmerman was so soft, he really had reason to pull out his gun to defend himself when Trayvon was on top.
Again, and I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, following someone does not constitute criminal negligence.
|
On July 09 2013 04:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." The far simpler and better spin is that because Zimmerman was so soft, he really had reason to pull out his gun to defend himself when Trayvon was on top. Again, and I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, following someone does not constitute criminal negligence.
Except Zimmerman was not just "following someone". He was following someone whom he believed was up to no good.
Remember to breath though.
|
On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun."
I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth?
|
On July 09 2013 04:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:02 Junichi wrote:
"Hearsay" on a discussion the witness had? And the objection is sustained? I've got to be interpreting that wrong... you cant enter evidence of what other people said absent an exception to the hearsay rule. he can discuss what he said, but he cant discuss what the other person said.
Well thank you, but wouldn't that make it hearsay when for example the detective talked about what Mr. Martin said? Since he was discussing what the other person in that conversation said? Can you make the distinction clear?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 09 2013 04:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:05 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." The far simpler and better spin is that because Zimmerman was so soft, he really had reason to pull out his gun to defend himself when Trayvon was on top. Again, and I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, following someone does not constitute criminal negligence. Except Zimmerman was not just "following someone". He was following someone whom he believed was up to no good. Remember to breath though.
I figured he was following just to keep track until the police get there since they "always get away".
|
On July 09 2013 04:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:05 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." The far simpler and better spin is that because Zimmerman was so soft, he really had reason to pull out his gun to defend himself when Trayvon was on top. Again, and I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, following someone does not constitute criminal negligence. Except Zimmerman was not just "following someone". He was following someone whom he believed was up to no good. Remember to breath though.
Again, that doesn't matter. Go read the jury instructions for what is required for a manslaughter charge.
|
On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth?
Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution.
|
lol this prosecutor doesn't know anything about MMA... >.<
submission someone from bottom? who do they think Zimmerman is, Royce Gracie?
|
"What's your Gym's Slogan"
"Learn to fight without getting hit"
"yeah... but you called it the most complete fighting gym in the world this one time, right"
This prosecution is priceless
|
On July 09 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth? Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution.
Except that the Judge told the jury otherwise and that following the Trayvon did not fact into the self defense claim.
|
On July 09 2013 04:08 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2013 04:02 Junichi wrote:
"Hearsay" on a discussion the witness had? And the objection is sustained? I've got to be interpreting that wrong... you cant enter evidence of what other people said absent an exception to the hearsay rule. he can discuss what he said, but he cant discuss what the other person said. Well thank you, but wouldn't that make it hearsay when for example the detective talked about what Mr. Martin said? Since he was discussing what the other person in that conversation said? Can you make the distinction clear?
judge originally sustained the objection, but then allowed it in later. there was a bench discussion which i wasnt privy to so i dont know what was said then. ordinarily, yes, what Mr. Martin said would be hearsay and inadmissible if introduced through another witness. you would usually call Mr. Martin himself to testify about it, but i doubt the defense wants to do that.
|
On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth?
Because having a gun at your disposal can lead to vastly inflate your sense of superiority when it comes to conflict. Also being small and fat can do a lot to lead to being self-concious which can lead to wanting to experience being superior in a conflict which would be possible via the use of (see above) a gun.
Ofc, this is pure speculation but I wouldn't say it hit's home the self-defense case, could be perceived a whole other way as described above.
|
That is what a cross examination looks like when the cross examiner has nothing.
|
On July 09 2013 04:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
lol this prosecutor doesn't know anything about MMA... >.<
submission someone from bottom? who do they think Zimmerman is, Royce Gracie?
It feels like the prosecutor didn't understand any of what the witness was saying about how long it takes to become ring-worthy for someone starting at a 1 (or .5) on a 1-10 scale. I feel sorry for him if he had to ask those questions short of not questioning the witness at all.
edit: or what xDaunt said ^
|
On July 09 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:08 Junichi wrote:On July 09 2013 04:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2013 04:02 Junichi wrote:
"Hearsay" on a discussion the witness had? And the objection is sustained? I've got to be interpreting that wrong... you cant enter evidence of what other people said absent an exception to the hearsay rule. he can discuss what he said, but he cant discuss what the other person said. Well thank you, but wouldn't that make it hearsay when for example the detective talked about what Mr. Martin said? Since he was discussing what the other person in that conversation said? Can you make the distinction clear? judge originally sustained the objection, but then allowed it in later. there was a bench discussion which i wasnt privy to so i dont know what was said then. ordinarily, yes, what Mr. Martin said would be hearsay and inadmissible if introduced through another witness. you would usually call Mr. Martin himself to testify about it, but i doubt the defense wants to do that.
Oh there was an objection about that? I must've missed that. Thank you again!
|
On July 09 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth? Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution.
Okay how about I put this same exact argument you are trying to argue in a different context.
Girl dresses slutty and has a gun in her purse, she takes a short cut through a dark alley in a bad part of town with a history of rape and someone tries to rape her. She kills the man with her gun while he was on top of her beating her.
According to you it was criminally negligent for her to go in such an area, dressed that way, with a gun on her person, so she deserves to go to jail for murder? That is just absurd.
|
On July 09 2013 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth? Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution. Except that the Judge told the jury otherwise and that following the Trayvon did not fact into the self defense claim.
I think this is more a testament to how weak the prosecutions case is relative to the evidence. In one way or another, the prosecution is going to need the jury to ignore or change how they understand their instruction if they want a guilty verdict. On July 09 2013 04:18 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth? Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution. Okay how about I put this same exact argument you are trying to argue in a different context. Girl dresses slutty and has a gun in her purse, she takes a short cut through a dark alley in a bad part of town with a history of rape and someone tries to rape her. She kills the man with her gun while he was on top of her beating her. According to you it was criminally negligent for her to go in such an area, dressed that way, with a gun on her person, so she deserves to go to jail for murder? That is just absurd.
Zimmerman would not make for a pretty woman.
|
On July 09 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:13 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2013 04:07 Dosey wrote:On July 09 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:
I don't know why folks are assuming this sort of testimony rings so clearly in favor of the defense. If it can be shown that Zimmerman was, for practical purposes, physically incompetent, it isn't exactly a far stretch to show that his proactive engagement in pursuing Trayvon amounted to negligence. In other words, with no physical defense to fall back on, Zimmerman's actions become closer to "looking for a reason to use his gun." I'd actually say it further proves that Martin started the conflict and not Zimmerman, hitting home the self-defense case in its entirety. Why would a physically incompetent short fat man try to start a fight with a tall lean black youth? Well that's the question, isn't it? From the defense's perspective, the answer would clearly be that he was not looking to start a fight and was merely doing his perceived duty as a neighborhood watchman. From the prosecutions perspective, it behooves them to attempt to show that Zimmerman, fully aware of his own physical limitations, put himself in a situation where use of his firearm was the only option. I'm not saying the evidence shows this, only that that angle would befit the prosecution. Except that the Judge told the jury otherwise and that following the Trayvon did not fact into the self defense claim. I think this is more a testament to how weak the prosecutions case is relative to the evidence. In one way or another, the prosecution is going to need the jury to ignore or change how they understand their instruction if they want a guilty verdict.
You raise a very important point here. Most attorneys on closing argument spend too much time "marshaling the evidence." In other words, they spend too much time recounting all of the testimony and evidence that was presented during the trial. What attorneys should do instead is spend a lot of time explaining the jury instructions and how certain key facts may or may not play into those instructions. This way, jurors are more likely to actually follow the instructions as intended. We'll see what the state and defense do at the close of trial.
|
On July 09 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:
Zimmerman would not make for a pretty woman.
I don't know, apparently he's pretty "soft"...
+ Show Spoiler +I shouldn't have been as amused by that as I was.
|
was the prosecution even trying with that cross exam... it was almost laughable
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
