|
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 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference.
Well its my opinion  He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors.
Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win.
|
"zimmerman should have been taken to the hospital, not the police station. he could have died from his head injuries. if he died and the family sued, they would have won." -- old bald dude.
excellent testimony for defense.
|
On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win.
the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman.
|
On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman.
I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can.
I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on.
|
On July 10 2013 03:45 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can. I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on.
thats why we have cross-examination and re-direct. this is how the system works. one side tries to present facts the way that makes his client look the best; the other side tries to destroy that portrayal. there has been no lying and if he misrepresents the facts then the defense could have objected.
|
On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman.
I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday.
|
On July 10 2013 03:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:45 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can. I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on. thats why we have cross-examination and re-direct. this is how the system works. one side tries to present facts the way that makes his client look the best; the other side tries to destroy that portrayal. there has been no lying and if he misrepresents the facts then the defense could have objected.
Some things can't be unheard. That trickery could have a lasting impact, especially since West clearly didn't catch it either. The system is in place for all of us. From what I see today, I hope to god I never end up in it because I can clearly see the odds would be against me and there is no moral ground.
|
On July 10 2013 03:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:45 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can. I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on. thats why we have cross-examination and re-direct. this is how the system works. one side tries to present facts the way that makes his client look the best; the other side tries to destroy that portrayal. there has been no lying and if he misrepresents the facts then the defense could have objected.
Isn't the prosecution subject to specific restrictions which the defense is not, as representatives of the State and pursuit of justice ?
|
On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday.
its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules.
|
On July 10 2013 03:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:45 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can. I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on. thats why we have cross-examination and re-direct. this is how the system works. one side tries to present facts the way that makes his client look the best; the other side tries to destroy that portrayal. there has been no lying and if he misrepresents the facts then the defense could have objected. Isn't the prosecution subject to specific restrictions which the defense is not, as representatives of the State and pursuit of justice ?
yes, but none that apply here.
|
On July 10 2013 03:53 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:45 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I disagree. I do not support defense attorneys who do the same stuff to get guilty people off. Confusing the Juror's is not how the system is supposed to work. You are supposed to give the jury your case, not mislead them so they take false notes. I would bet large sums of money that at least 3 of those jurors wrote down the old guy confirmed the shirt could have been further away from his chest while standing because of the weight of the can. I support Zimmerman in this case because of what we have been shown so far in the trial (which I sadly have watched nearly every minute). I do not have a bias towards zimmerman for any other reasons. I did not go into this hoping he wins, but I will admit I quickly formed my opinion from what was shown early on. thats why we have cross-examination and re-direct. this is how the system works. one side tries to present facts the way that makes his client look the best; the other side tries to destroy that portrayal. there has been no lying and if he misrepresents the facts then the defense could have objected. Some things can't be unheard. That trickery could have a lasting impact, especially since West clearly didn't catch it either. The system is in place for all of us. From what I see today, I hope to god I never end up in it because I can clearly see the odds would be against me and there is no moral ground.
if West (an actual attorney trained to do this work) didnt "catch it" then maybe, just maybe, you're barking up the wrong tree?
|
On July 10 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday. its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules.
It's ridiculous to dismiss someone's problems with the legal system as a product of 'bias in favor of Zimmerman'. You're not at all clouded by your bias towards the current system, being a lawyer and all, right?
|
On July 10 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday. its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules.
There's no disagreement here. You're arguing from a purely real world stance, and he's arguing for an ideal. Neither of you are wrong, I think in a perfect world, everyone would be perfectly impartial, the attorney, the judge, the jury, and facts would be presented which would allow the jury to come to a decision.
In reality, that isn't possible, we have preconceived notions, differences of opinions, etc. We have to sometimes play to more base things than logic.
|
That doctor seemed like one of the most professional people i have ever seen. So calm and objective.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
That doctor seemed like one of the most professional people i have ever seen. So calm and objective.
ya but I think the prosecutor was starting to piss him off with all the questions lol.
I hope that O'Mara started instead of West.
|
On July 10 2013 03:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
That doctor seemed like one of the most professional people i have ever seen. So calm and objective.
and he had a hot daughter/assistant/trophy wife, my god, did anyone else see her?
i actually thought he was being maybe a bit too jovial or arrogant in some of his testimony which could rub the jury the wrong way.
|
On July 10 2013 03:58 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday. its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules. There's no disagreement here. You're arguing from a purely real world stance, and he's arguing for an ideal. Neither of you are wrong, I think in a perfect world, everyone would be perfectly impartial, the attorney, the judge, the jury, and facts would be presented which would allow the jury to come to a decision. In reality, that isn't possible, we have preconceived notions, differences of opinions, etc. We have to sometimes play to more base things than logic.
in a perfect world there would be no crime.
|
On July 10 2013 03:57 OVERTsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday. its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules. It's ridiculous to dismiss someone's problems with the legal system as a product of 'bias in favor of Zimmerman'. You're not at all clouded by your bias towards the current system, being a lawyer and all, right?
I have to agree with this person. You (dAPhREAk ) are getting so overly defensive about his tactic that I would question your moral grounds as well. My objection to his tactic has nothing to do with this case and who is right or wrong. The bottom line is: He intentional tried to convince the jury of a fact by confusing them with a play on words so that they would take incorrect notes. If you support that kind of questioning, then sorry but I wouldn't have any respect for you, either.
Edit: I will again make the point: while I support the zimmerman side AT THIS POINT, if his attorney did the same thing, I would lose respect for him as well, REGARDLESS of my feeling towards Zimmerman's guild or innocence.
|
MOM vs City Manager. This is gonna be good. Witness is coming off hostile.
|
On July 10 2013 04:02 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:57 OVERTsc2 wrote:On July 10 2013 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:48 crms wrote:On July 10 2013 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:39 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie. not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object. interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys: defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference. Well its my opinion He is playing with someone's life with the simple objective of winning. It shows he has no moral grounds to his job. I have no respect for people who will go to those levels. I am all for the defense in the case, but if they do the same thing, I would have the same lack of respect. If there is no facts, he shouldn't be using play on words to confuse jurors. Edit: Our taxes are paying for this guy to try and convict innocent people (my opinion of zimmerman to date). If he is willing to do so here, who knows many cases he is fucked with Juror's minds simply to win. the system doesnt work if he doesnt do his job correctly. i am sure you would feel differently if you werent biased in favor of zimmerman. I see what he is saying though. The system is built for the defense to do things like this because the defendant has inherent rights in our constitution to a fair trial and to have representation. It seems backward if it's the prosecution who doesn't have evidence to suggest someone is guilty, yet still proceed to try and twist words and 'win' a case in which they have no substantial evidence. I can't imagine the state reviewed what was given and thought this was a case worth going after. The only reason anyone knows about this case is because the media decided to make it a 'big deal'. This case is hardly newsworthy in comparison to crimes/trials going on everyday. its nice that you guys have made up your mind already before the fact finding trial has concluded, but that is not how the system works. the trial determines whether there are sufficient facts (or a pre-trial motion, which defendant waived, or a motion to acquit, which the court denied) to convict the defendant. you guys are heavily biased in favor of zimmerman and its really clouding your judgment. the prosecutor is using legally approved means to convict the defendant; and the defense is using legally approved means to seek an acquittal for the defendant. nothing untoward is going on here. this is par for the course. if you guys think something is "wrong" then you should see people who dont follow the rules argue, and then you will see the judge up in arms. the fact that the judge is not, in fact, up in arms means the trial is going according to the rules. It's ridiculous to dismiss someone's problems with the legal system as a product of 'bias in favor of Zimmerman'. You're not at all clouded by your bias towards the current system, being a lawyer and all, right? I have to agree with this person. You (dAPhREAk ) are getting so overly defensive about his tactic that I would question your moral grounds as well. My objection to his tactic has nothing to do with this case and who is right or wrong. The bottom line is: He intentional tried to convince the jury of a fact by confusing them with a play on words so that they would take incorrect notes. If you support that kind of questioning, then sorry but I wouldn't have any respect for you, either.
there is nothing legally wrong with his "tactic," which is what i have been trying to explain to you since you appear to have very limited knowledge of trial practice. i am not defensive, i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
