|
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 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot.
Are you seriously going to keep playing this game? Face it, the reason people want to see Trayvon as the victim is because the media made it national news that a white man gunned down a black boy and has been consistently one-sided against George Zimmerman from the beginning..people don't care if George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense because they already have it in their mind that he racially profiled Trayvon and shot him because he is black.
|
On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit.
|
They couldn't even secure a conviction here... that says something, whether you like it or not.
On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit.
edit: it's not being hostile to disagree very strongly about the role a DA should play in a trial. He, and the other lawyers here, none of whom are DA's or criminal defense attorney's, have posited that the prosecution is justified in bringing the trial forward... I disagree due to my interactions with DA's.
|
On July 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot.
Why do you keep coming back to this thread? You provide literally nothing other than trying to push the racial aspect of the case and then tell your version of events that are completely untrue.
You've been warned twice now and temp banned once? Will you just give it a rest already.
Anyway juries are pretty unpredictable but I honestly hope he's not guilty. After hearing all the evidence (especially John Good's testimony) I feel that he truly is innocent. The only thing he's guilty of is being over-zealous, which unfortunately isn't a crime. It's also unfortunate a 17 year old had to lose their life so early.
On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit.
daphreak initially thought Zimmerman was guilty (I don't know if his opinion has changed). I was actually really disappointed when I saw him post that because he came off as very impartial.
|
On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling.
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Also, you are not an attorney or even well versed in the legal field. There is a reason courts go through this process and you should keep your hostility under raps. Questions of fact are settled by juries and judges, not the prosecutor. Clearly, he thought the case should go to trial and the judge agreed.
|
On July 11 2013 02:18 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Injuries front and back from tree branches?
There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby?
In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot. Why do you keep coming back to this thread? You provide literally nothing other than trying to push the racial aspect of the case and then tell your version of events that are completely untrue. You've been warned twice now and temp banned once? Will you just give it a rest already. Anyway juries are pretty unpredictable but I honestly hope he's not guilty. After hearing all the evidence (especially John Good's testimony) I feel that he truly is innocent. The only thing he's guilty of is being over-zealous, which unfortunately isn't a crime. It's also unfortunate a 17 year old had to lose their life so early.
I'm ok with him having an opinion about what happened, it's just getting really old hearing the same shit:
"All we know is vigilante shot a kid. Literally. That is the only evidence we have in this case. Seriously guys."
George zimmerman better hope that some of those women are members of teamliquid based on that poll 
|
On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury.
Pretend this case isn't in the national spotlight with tremendous media and political pressure. Pretend this exact scenario played out and the only people involved are the DAs, the Judge and the Defense. You still think this trial would be going on, or would even exist? I'm fairly confident these charges would have never been brought up at all and the trial wouldn't even exist.
I can't imagine you do.
|
On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Also, you are not an attorney or even well versed in the legal field. There is a reason courts go through this process and you should keep your hostility under raps. Questions of fact are settled by juries and judges, not the prosecutor. Clearly, he thought the case should go to trial and the judge agreed.
Judge's aren't robots, they have opinions and they do rule on them. It would be impossible for a judge to be completely impartial and to only consider the facts.
As I said before: it is not hostility to disagree strongly, based on better expert opinion than any given here (over 100 years of combined prosecuting experience)....
|
On July 11 2013 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:They couldn't even secure a conviction here... that says something, whether you like it or not. Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit. edit: it's not being hostile to disagree very strongly about the role a DA should play in a trial. He, and the other lawyers here, none of whom are DA's or criminal defense attorney's, have posited that the prosecution is justified in bringing the trial forward... I disagree due to my interactions with DA's.
You don't understand how being a DA works. I detailed this in my last post, but the trial is the END of the case, not the beginning. If evidence came up that made him feel he should drop the case, it would have happened well before the trial took place. Once they are at trial, it is about presenting the evidence to the jury, rather than fact finding. There are few surprises at most trials.
|
On July 11 2013 02:05 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:59 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_20_2_ethics.htmlRationales for treating prosecutors differently The government’s overarching interest in justice. A primary rationale for requiring a prosecutor at times to act differently than a defense lawyer flows from the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not an individual client. All lawyers must under Model Rule 1.2 allow the client to determine the objectives of the representation. Usually, a client charged with a crime directs the lawyer to seek acquittal on any charges and to minimize punishment if convicted, regardless of the client’s guilt or the punishment the client may deserve. When the client is the government, determining the client’s interests is not so simple. In representing the government, a prosecutor represents all of the citizenry—including, in a sense, the accused. In this role of representing the citizenry, a prosecutor must decide what is in the public’s interest and then advance that position. In making these decisions, courts and ethics rules direct a prosecutor to act fairly and impartially, and to seek procedural as well as substantive justice for the accused. For example, in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), the Supreme Court stated that the government’s interest “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger and other court decisions reflect the belief that the citizenry, therefore the government, has an overarching interest in justice. Ethics rules also assume that a prosecutor’s special interest in justice does not end with simply convicting those legally responsible. Comment [1] to Model Rule 3.8 states that the prosecutor is not simply “an advocate” but also a “minister of justice” who has “specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become. Come on, we all know the answer to that question. Political pressure to bring the case to trial after the dumb media blitz on the case. I never said that the system was flawless or immune to influence from outside forces. Right, and given what you just said people have a right to criticize the prosecution for what they're doing. They're bowing to political and media pressure to try and convict a man of a charge they can't possibly believe he committed. Yet, you and the other law professionals continue to defend these actions instead of calling it like it is. I think this is why some are getting frustrated and now debating the 'role' of public attorneys. I believe everything you guys have said in regards to civil matters or from a defense attorneys perspective. I can't agree with state prosecutors trying to get bogus charges to stick using whatever tactics legal or otherwise. That shouldn't be the role of the state and they can't wash their hands of responsibility because 'the jury can decide'. The state should be the first measure in validity of claims and if the evidence isn't good, or the charges are bogus, they shouldn't proceed. Obviously I'm speaking very black and white and EVERYTHING is always more complicated but it fundamentally rubs me the wrong way that the state (the authority at be) can attempt to 'win' cases and not strictly pursue justice whether it's in the interest of the state or not. That's pretty scary actually.
Minorities and people getting worked up about this case would be harmed more than helped if GZ is found guilty. At this point, it's very clear that GZ should not be found guilty of 2nd degree murder, and probably not manslaughter either. If convicted, it's, imo, a failure of the system (hopefully to be overturned in appeals, but that's beside the point). That same system is the one that treats minorities unfairly, or so they would normally complain (I believe it's at least somewhat true though).
I'm saying a GZ conviction is not a victory against racism, but a loss demonstrating a flawed legal system, which will hurt minorities even more.
|
On July 11 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:They couldn't even secure a conviction here... that says something, whether you like it or not. On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit. edit: it's not being hostile to disagree very strongly about the role a DA should play in a trial. He, and the other lawyers here, none of whom are DA's or criminal defense attorney's, have posited that the prosecution is justified in bringing the trial forward... I disagree due to my interactions with DA's. You don't understand how being a DA works. I detailed this in my last post, but the trial is the END of the case, not the beginning. If evidence came up that made him feel he should drop the case, it would have happened well before the trial took place. Once they are at trial, it is about presenting the evidence to the jury, rather than fact finding. There are few surprises at most trials.
I understand perfectly how being a DA works, lol, I lived with one for 22 years.
You all keep posting the ideal as if it is the fact. Sure... a DA who feels before the trial that there is not enough evidence should drop the case. Will he/she? That is up to the ethics of the DA in question. Given the complete lack of evidence, I would say that this proves these DA's have pretty shady ethics, and therefore wouldn't have dropped this case.
|
On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them.
Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example...
|
On July 11 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Also, you are not an attorney or even well versed in the legal field. There is a reason courts go through this process and you should keep your hostility under raps. Questions of fact are settled by juries and judges, not the prosecutor. Clearly, he thought the case should go to trial and the judge agreed. Judge's aren't robots, they have opinions and they do rule on them. It would be impossible for a judge to be completely impartial and to only consider the facts. As I said before: it is not hostility to disagree strongly, based on better expert opinion than any given here (over 100 years of combined prosecuting experience)....
Guess, what, the entire justice system is made up of people. However, we trust them and have faith they will make the right rulings. Most judges would have ruled in that fashion, since cases should go through the discovery process, rather than be dismissed. If the judge felt there was a question of fact that should be fleshed out, the case should go to trial.
After seeing the case, I agree with the ruling. The facts were not clear cut enough to warrant the case being acquitted and trial was the best place to flesh them out, especially since someone died due to the results of that fact set.
|
On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example...
And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job.
|
On July 11 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example... And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job.
Would you suggest we bury our head in the sand as opposed to being receptive to possible abuses brought to our attention ? How do you feel about "healthy skepticism" ?
|
On July 11 2013 02:22 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. Pretend this case isn't in the national spotlight with tremendous media and political pressure. Pretend this exact scenario played out and the only people involved are the DAs, the Judge and the Defense. You still think this trial would be going on, or would even exist? I'm fairly confident these charges would have never been brought up at all and the trial wouldn't even exist. I can't imagine you do.
the investigator recommended manslaughter before the media got involved. true, the state attorneys office refused to prosecute initially, but the investigation was ongoing. so, yes, there is a good chance this would have been brought absent the media
|
On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Unfortunately, TL isn't remotely the same as the jury in this case. TL is much younger, predominantly male, and has higher IQ than the general population.
|
On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Unfortunately, TL isn't remotely the same as the jury in this case. TL is much younger, predominantly male, and has higher IQ than the general population.
And has pretty comprehensive access to the facts of the case. The jury does not.
|
On July 11 2013 02:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example... And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job. Would you suggest we bury our head in the sand as opposed to being receptive to possible abuses brought to our attention ? How do you feel about "healthy skepticism" ?
Its good, as long as it is "healthy". In this specific case, the judge made the right call, as the fact set for the case was not clear cut. It looks that way after the trial is nearly done, but that doesn't mean it looked that way at the time the Judge ruled.
|
On July 11 2013 02:18 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Injuries front and back from tree branches?
There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby?
In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot. Why do you keep coming back to this thread? You provide literally nothing other than trying to push the racial aspect of the case and then tell your version of events that are completely untrue. You've been warned twice now and temp banned once? Will you just give it a rest already. Anyway juries are pretty unpredictable but I honestly hope he's not guilty. After hearing all the evidence (especially John Good's testimony) I feel that he truly is innocent. The only thing he's guilty of is being over-zealous, which unfortunately isn't a crime. It's also unfortunate a 17 year old had to lose their life so early. Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:On July 11 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor. Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows. If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury. The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling. Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
daphreak has been updating and informing people on decisions and has not taken either side AFAIK. dial down the hostility a bit. daphreak initially thought Zimmerman was guilty (I don't know if his opinion has changed). I was actually really disappointed when I saw him post that because he came off as very impartial.
i continue to think zimmerman is a dumbass, and i originally thought that there were enough discrepancies in his story that he could get convicted of manslaughter (not murder 2). this was all pre-trial. now that trial has started, i dont think the prosecutor has a good chance of convicting. juries are notoriously unpredictable (and emotional) so there is still a chance that he could get thrown in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
