|
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 02:22 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.
I can see it being tried for manslaughter.
|
On July 11 2013 02:15 kmillz 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. 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.
I wasn't playing any game.
The question was asked about why people would support Zimmerman, I responded.
You attempted to disprove it by forgetting to point out that Zimmerman left his car and was near Trayvon's house--I simply filled in the blanks.
I've already concluded (and stated so multiple times in the past several pages) that until John Good's testimony is refuted it is impossible to convict Zimmerman; and that's even if Zimmerman is a cross burning nazi who was looking for a random black man to put in a conventional oven one hacked off limb at a time, John Good's testimony still proves self defense.
So far the prosecution isn't even touching Good's testimony; which means that Zimmerman can't be convicted.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Let's not forgot the texts deleted from Trayvon's phone. Wonder what was on those messages that was so important for them to resort to that. Sounds very convenient for the prosecution >< As for the case, thinking about it, I do think they should've brought it to court. It's not due to public pressure but rather it was cloudy with all the evidence floating around. Having heard parts of the trial and looking at the evidence, I think that it's clearly in favour of the defense.
I think someone commented when I said that the last witness doesn't have much testimony experience. I was talking in regards to testimony in front of a jury and such. That was one of the first things that the prosecutor asked him and you can tell at least in the early part of the questioning by the prosecutor that he wasn't doing well but he improved as it went on imo and did a good job.
Someone also mentioned about THC and I agree with your comment. His THC levels were really low, not enough to have any impact and I believe based on that, it would've been weeks ago that he took the drug so I don't think it'll do much for the defense.
|
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.
based on my experience and the bullshit thats get prosecuted, yes, i can see this case going to trial absent the media pressure. indeed, the investigator recommended a manslaughter charge pre-media frenzy.
|
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.
I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end.
you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O
|
On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O
BW maybe but SCII... that's a bit of a stretch.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 02:45 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O BW maybe but SCII... that's a bit of a stretch.
lol let's not start a BW vs SCII fight. It was aiming to target RTS players lol
Edit: Back on!
|
On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:36 Kaitlin wrote: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.
My only problem with this is that at the time the judge ruled: the state had already provided every bit of their case. Their case was done. The fact sets that support their case had already been provided... and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing except where it seemed to corroborate Zimmerman's story! The defense hasn't really brought anything new to the table except the pathologist, and even he didn't say anything we didn't already know!
|
On July 11 2013 02:41 BigFan wrote:
I think someone commented when I said that the last witness doesn't have much testimony experience. I was talking in regards to testimony in front of a jury and such. That was one of the first things that the prosecutor asked him and you can tell at least in the early part of the questioning by the prosecutor that he wasn't doing well but he improved as it went on imo and did a good job.
That witness has plenty of experience testifying in front of a jury, it is absolutely incorrect to say otherwise. This is his first time as an "expert witness" as an independent contractor. His experience testifying carries over, such things as looking at the jury when you answer, answering the questions asked, being clear and concise, not getting defensive under cross-examination, etc. This witness is clearly a trained and experienced at giving testimony in front of a jury.
|
On July 11 2013 02:45 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O BW maybe but SCII... that's a bit of a stretch.
Get the BW Vs. Sc2 shit out of here. Like, seriously?
|
On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O
No, I agree. It's just funny because there is no data to back it up except some studies that show sc players have more logical and mathematical leaning thinking tendencies. It's funny because probably every group would say they have a higher iq then the general population.
|
On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote: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. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O
Confirmation bias 
|
On July 11 2013 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:15 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I wasn't playing any game. The question was asked about why people would support Zimmerman, I responded. You attempted to disprove it by forgetting to point out that Zimmerman left his car and was near Trayvon's house--I simply filled in the blanks. I've already concluded (and stated so multiple times in the past several pages) that until John Good's testimony is refuted it is impossible to convict Zimmerman; and that's even if Zimmerman is a cross burning nazi who was looking for a random black man to put in a conventional oven one hacked off limb at a time, John Good's testimony still proves self defense. So far the prosecution isn't even touching Good's testimony; which means that Zimmerman can't be convicted.
I didn't attempt to disprove anything, I was just showing how stupid it is to leave gaping holes in the story just because they inconvenience your side. You must have missed this part at the end of that post:
See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
I was making a point, not seriously saying that those were the only events that happened. I am aware of both sides of the story, but you only like to talk about one of them!
|
|
|
This judge is being a prick.
|
weird, zimmerman is playing games as to whether he is going to testify or not.
|
On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick.
its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick.
|
On July 11 2013 02:49 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:15 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I wasn't playing any game. The question was asked about why people would support Zimmerman, I responded. You attempted to disprove it by forgetting to point out that Zimmerman left his car and was near Trayvon's house--I simply filled in the blanks. I've already concluded (and stated so multiple times in the past several pages) that until John Good's testimony is refuted it is impossible to convict Zimmerman; and that's even if Zimmerman is a cross burning nazi who was looking for a random black man to put in a conventional oven one hacked off limb at a time, John Good's testimony still proves self defense. So far the prosecution isn't even touching Good's testimony; which means that Zimmerman can't be convicted. I didn't attempt to disprove anything, I was just showing how stupid it is to leave gaping holes in the story just because they inconvenience your side. You must have missed this part at the end of that post: Show nested quote +
See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
I was making a point, not seriously saying that those were the only events that happened. I am aware of both sides of the story, but you only like to talk about one of them!
Fair enough, I misunderstood you. Too much residual bickering from the gun control thread 
I still personally feel that Zimmerman should be punished, but the evidence doesn't allow for it to happen. Which sucks.
|
Why was the judge doing that ? The defense hasn't finished its "other than Zimmerman" case yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
