|
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 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.
You are under the assumption that the state "knows" that Zimmerman is innocent and hence you assume that the state is "confusing" the jury.
Both sides are presenting and arguing their points. Some arguments better than others. You don't get to decide what argument does or doesn't count just because you supposedly "know" the answer.
|
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag.
|
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ?
|
On July 10 2013 04:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:02 jeremycafe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You are under the assumption that the state "knows" that Zimmerman is innocent and hence you assume that the state is "confusing" the jury. Both sides are presenting and arguing their points. Some arguments better than others. You don't get to decide what argument does or doesn't count just because you supposedly "know" the answer.
"You are under the assumption that the state "knows" that Zimmerman is innocent and hence you assume that the state is "confusing" the jury."
It doesn't matter what they know. They clearly tried to trick the jury. Nothing else more to it.
Edit: Missed this part: Both sides are presenting and arguing their points. Some arguments better than others.
I would be completely fine if all he did was argue his point. But that is not what he did, he argued his point and then at the last minute swapped ONE word out to change the meaning but made it sound as if it was still along the same line. That is not making a point, it is misleading a jury.
|
On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag.
lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are?
|
On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ?
Bill the former police chief testified that the usual practice for showing audio evidence to (potential) witnesses is to do it individually, so that they don't affect each others' statements. By playing the tapes to the entire family at the same time, the city manager might have tainted their testimony as witnesses in this case.
|
On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ?
they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results.
|
On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are?
Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance.
"but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case"
This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State.
|
On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State.
I think you are confused as to what the Defenses job is. They do not care if you are anyone else is morally outraged and never should be. I would fire my defense attorney if he gave two shits about anyone else but me when he was defending me. They are ethically required to defend their client to the best of their ability.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State.
do you mind stating what it was? I feel like I know what you're talking about because I did notice that the medical examiner answered differently to a question that he originally agreed to but can't remember what it was.
|
On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State.
So you don't like his word choice or his style of speech?
|
On July 10 2013 04:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State. I think you are confused as to what the Defenses job is. They do not care if you are anyone else is morally outraged and never should be. I would fire my defense attorney if he gave two shits about anyone else but me when he was defending me. They are ethically required to defend their client to the best of their ability.
he is morally outraged at the prosecutor.
|
On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results.
Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that.
|
On July 10 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:19 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State. I think you are confused as to what the Defenses job is. They do not care if you are anyone else is morally outraged and never should be. I would fire my defense attorney if he gave two shits about anyone else but me when he was defending me. They are ethically required to defend their client to the best of their ability. he is morally outraged at the prosecutor.
I stand corrected but, my point still stands that attorneys shouldn't be concerned with the moral outrage of others, no matter who they are representing.
|
On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that.
thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias).
i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording).
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording).
so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias?
|
On July 10 2013 04:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State. I think you are confused as to what the Defenses job is. They do not care if you are anyone else is morally outraged and never should be. I would fire my defense attorney if he gave two shits about anyone else but me when he was defending me. They are ethically required to defend their client to the best of their ability.
I don't know if I agree with that. They are ethically required to give the best legal council that they can give, not necessarily defend to the best of their ability (ie: keep you out of jail).
|
On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias?
I would.
|
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?
You understand that it is an adversarial system, right? The prosecutor is doing his job (no matter how poorly), by using whatever legal means he has at his disposal.. he can't just stop mid-trail, and be like, "well, you've made some really good points there, Defense, I suppose you've changed my mind as well, Trial Over!!".. it's the jury's responsibility to decide guilt.
I'm not saying that it, at times, can be a very flawed system.. but it's the best option anyone has at this moment in time. For what it's worth.. there's no such thing as a "moral law".. something is either legal, or it isn't..
|
Looks like defense is wrapping up tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
