|
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 04:17 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote: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!
yes. i dont understand how it got in either. it was also weird that they called her (the cop), tried to get the evidence of what Mr. martin said into evidence, court sustained objection and then she was released subject to recall. they then called the other detective and asked questions. once they were done, they called the woman again and asked her the same question that was originally sustained by the judge. i wasnt paying close attention, but i didnt understand what happened as well. it is all very confusing.
|
Prosecution missed some easy points by not pointing out the 1-10 scale was with competitive MMA fighters not being 10's either.
Simply asking who are some athletes that would make the 10 rating or the like would of done a lot to help the prosecution...
|
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. Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:18 Dosey 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. 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.
Objection, Improper Hypothetical.
|
On July 09 2013 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Prosecution missed some easy points by not pointing out the 1-10 scale was with competitive MMA fighters not being 10's either.
Simply asking who are some athletes that would make the 10 rating or the like would of done a lot to help the prosecution...
I'll give you that, they could have made their point a little better... but then again, the guy had already hammered home pretty hard that Zimmerman was basically incompetent (if dedicated) when it came to fighting.
The arm-bar thing was so bad... they have got to do some research before they ask these questions...
|
On July 09 2013 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Prosecution missed some easy points by not pointing out the 1-10 scale was with competitive MMA fighters not being 10's either.
Simply asking who are some athletes that would make the 10 rating or the like would of done a lot to help the prosecution...
Maybe, but what would that really have accomplished? The gym owner expressed pretty clearly aside from the rating that GZ was no fighter by far, by saying which training he was allowed to do. He made it pretty clear that GZ was in his opinion in no way able to win a fight under controlled conditions.
|
On July 09 2013 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote: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. On July 09 2013 04:18 Dosey 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. 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. Objection, Improper Hypothetical.
lol, move to strike.
|
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.
LOL thats a fucking horrible analogy dude. I hate when people say "here, lets make an analogy out of this" then they go and make some bullshit analogy to just further their point even though the analogy makes no sense.
|
On July 09 2013 04:01 Msr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 03:59 BigFan wrote:On July 09 2013 03:58 Random_Guy09 wrote:
lol what does this lawyer not understand about him "not getting past learning how to punch" past 3 questions all lead to the same answer. he wants to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman can't fight at all since people were saying that he would have the advantage over Trayvon in a fight. this, but i am curious what zimmerman would rate himself on this 1-10 scale.
I would think seeing the others in the gym actually learning various things while he is stuck at the heavy bag so he can learn how to punch without doing more damage to himself than his adversary should clue him in to his ability, or lack thereof.
|
On July 09 2013 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:01 Msr wrote:On July 09 2013 03:59 BigFan wrote:On July 09 2013 03:58 Random_Guy09 wrote:
lol what does this lawyer not understand about him "not getting past learning how to punch" past 3 questions all lead to the same answer. he wants to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman can't fight at all since people were saying that he would have the advantage over Trayvon in a fight. this, but i am curious what zimmerman would rate himself on this 1-10 scale. I would think seeing the others in the gym actually learning various things while he is stuck at the heavy bag so he can learn how to punch without doing more damage to himself than his adversary should clue him in to his ability, or lack thereof.
yeah, that would just be mean:
"Did you know that the owner of your gym thought you were a softie who barely even rated on his physical aptitude scale?"
|
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."
If he was looking for a reason to use his gun, he would have drawn his gun, at least I believe there is a reasonable doubt that such is true.
|
On July 09 2013 04:40 Kaitlin 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." If he was looking for a reason to use his gun, he would have drawn his gun, at least I believe there is a reasonable doubt that such is true.
I don't disagree with you.
|
On July 09 2013 04:36 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:18 Dosey 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. 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. LOL thats a fucking horrible analogy dude. I hate when people say "here, lets make an analogy out of this" then they go and make some bullshit analogy to just further their point even though the analogy makes no sense.
How is it bull shit? His argument is that because Zimmerman put himself into that position with no other means to protect himself, it was criminal negligence for him to be carrying a firearm in the first place while following someone "suspicious". In this hypothetical, the woman could have easily avoided going into that alley in that part of town but went anyway because she knew she could protect herself with her firearm. Is that not essentially the same scenario in terms of supposed criminal negligence?
|
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?
Not specifically from bottom, but from being mounted is the real problem. Submissions are very common from bottom, but from bottom position being mounted, the only thing you do is change position or get pummeled.
|
On July 09 2013 04:40 Kaitlin 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." If he was looking for a reason to use his gun, he would have drawn his gun, at least I believe there is a reasonable doubt that such is true.
he did draw his gun. then he fired it
I agree with farvacola on this one. He was told not to follow trayvon, he did so anyways while having a loaded weapon. If he was going to introduce a firearm to the situation, the least he should've done is obeyed the instructions given to him.
|
On July 09 2013 04:43 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:36 HeavenS wrote:On July 09 2013 04:18 Dosey 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. 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. LOL thats a fucking horrible analogy dude. I hate when people say "here, lets make an analogy out of this" then they go and make some bullshit analogy to just further their point even though the analogy makes no sense. How is it bull shit? His argument is that because Zimmerman put himself into that position with no other means to protect himself, it was criminal negligence for him to be carrying a firearm in the first place while following someone "suspicious". In this hypothetical, the woman could have easily avoided going into that alley in that part of town but went anyway because she knew she could protect herself with her firearm. Is that not essentially the same scenario in terms of supposed criminal negligence?
No, it was not his carrying the firearm that amounted to negligence, it was his actions in and around the pursuit of Martin. Regardless of jury instruction, the difference between someone going somewhere and being ready to defend themselves and someone actively following someone is fairly plain to see in the eyes of the average person not looking to make poor hypotheticals. Again, I'm not arguing that the evidence directly shows any of this, I'm more or less arguing that the prosecution is going to have to work miracles with what the evidence says and how the jury perceives it.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 09 2013 04:45 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:40 Kaitlin 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." If he was looking for a reason to use his gun, he would have drawn his gun, at least I believe there is a reasonable doubt that such is true. he did draw his gun. then he fired it I agree with farvacola on this one. He was told not to follow trayvon, he did so anyways while having a loaded weapon. If he was going to introduce a firearm to the situation, the least he should've done is obeyed the instructions given to him.
@bolded for the record, it wasn't an order, just a suggestion. Ya, he should've thought the situation through but I doubt he did.
|
On July 09 2013 04:45 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 04:40 Kaitlin 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." If he was looking for a reason to use his gun, he would have drawn his gun, at least I believe there is a reasonable doubt that such is true. he did draw his gun. then he fired it I agree with farvacola on this one. He was told not to follow trayvon, he did so anyways while having a loaded weapon. If he was going to introduce a firearm to the situation, the least he should've done is obeyed the instructions given to him.
That doesn't mean anything for the case. Following someone is no a crime, even if the police told him not to. It is also not a good reason for Trayvon to assault Zimmerman. The fact that he followed him does not factor into the case at all.
|
On July 09 2013 04:04 BigFan 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 think by showing he can't fight, it shows that if Trayvon got on top of him in the position that was discussed earlier, he won't be able to get him off and his life can be threatened. Not a far stretch imo. wow, calling him soft is almost like an insult to most guys lol
Also, they can't exactly go down that line of questioning unless Zimmerman takes the stand, which I highly doubt.
|
|
|
On July 09 2013 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Prosecution missed some easy points by not pointing out the 1-10 scale was with competitive MMA fighters not being 10's either.
Simply asking who are some athletes that would make the 10 rating or the like would of done a lot to help the prosecution...
I think this falls into the category of not asking a question if you don't know the answer. It's safe to say that any professional fighter would be rated as a 10. You really can't assume how the witness will respond, so that's why such a question wouldn't and shouldn't be pursued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
