|
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 03:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:54 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote: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! Yes, and the judge was not willing to decide the case and wanted it to go before a jury. You think the case is terrible, but you don't know how the jury is going to rule. I don't either. And as a judge, I would be very reluctant to dismiss any murder charge like this one, since the evidence is not as clear cut. Once again, its your opinion. You could say, "I would have dismissed the case", but that doesn't mean you get to question the ethics of the people who disagree with you. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you start insulting other people or claiming that other people are amoral because they disagree with you, you open yourself to being yelled at. I didn't insult anyone in this thread, and I didn't claim that anyone here was amoral. I called into question the ethics of the prosecutors because they have shown that they have a severe lack of ethics. The lack of knowledge in how a jury will rule is entirely based on the fact that juries don't understand how to apply the law. If we knew that this jury was full of lawyers, it would be a virtual certainty that Zimmerman would be not-guilty. "Leaving it up to the jury" should be the last resort, not the first. That's why you need to have a case before you bring it to trial. The prosecutors didn't have a case. If my opinion is that the prosecution has absolutely no case whatsoever, and is well aware of that, then my opinion is that they have a lack of ethics. It's not a difference of opinion about whether or not they should have done A or B... it's a matter of intentionally trying to put an innocent man in prison because of political bias/gain. Then I would recommend the following: Voice your opinion that the prosecution has not case, but keep you opinion that they are unethical to yourself. Now you may say that you are entitled to your opinion and that is correct. However, I think some women are ugly and keep it to myself to avoid getting yelled at. This situation is similar, some people don't agree with your opinion and are willing to yell at you because of it. But if I feel they have no case then that necessitates a lack of ethics on their part. DA's have a responsibility to not prosecute when there is no case. It's not a A and B situation. If they have no case then they shouldn't have pretended they did.
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:49 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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! 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. At least you admit it...lmao I think alot of people feel the same way as you but won't admit that the evidence is what's getting in their way.
Specifically John Good's testimony. None of the other evidence has convinced me of self defense; but I won't dispute someone saying he told Trayvon to stop punching and Trayvon ignoring the command.
|
On July 11 2013 03:05 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:58 crms wrote:On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote: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. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. What are the backgrounds of West and O'Mara? Are they long time partners at some firm? I've got the feeling more than once in this trial that O'Mara is less than pleased with West. From a laymens point of view, O'Mara has been the far better attorney. West had a few shining moments but also some very daft, very bizarre moments. i have no idea. never knew about west until trial. only knew of O'Mara. So O'Mara was a famous defense attorney prior to this who took the case pro bono to get exposure? Now I want to look them all up!
Meh, I guess O'Mara isn't famous but is relatively known in his area of Central Florida.
Don West seems to be an old friend of O'Mara's and was a former federal public defender.
On May 31, 2012, Orlando attorney Don West left his job as a federal public defender to join the defense team led by O'Mara. West specialized in murder cases and had been a board certified criminal trial specialist for 25 years. He and O'Mara had been friends for a long time
|
On July 11 2013 03:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:57 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 02:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:49 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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! 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. At least you admit it...lmao I think alot of people feel the same way as you but won't admit that the evidence is what's getting in their way. Specifically John Good's testimony. None of the other evidence has convinced me of self defense; but I won't dispute someone saying he told Trayvon to stop punching and Trayvon ignoring the command.
Yeah John Good's testimony really did it for me as well. In all seriousness we will never know what lead up to the fight but we know how the last few moments of it ended. Which put Zimmerman in the "right" if you just factor that in.
|
"Overruled. Move on to your next question, please." Not sure that makes much sense.
|
On July 11 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:04 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:54 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote: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! Yes, and the judge was not willing to decide the case and wanted it to go before a jury. You think the case is terrible, but you don't know how the jury is going to rule. I don't either. And as a judge, I would be very reluctant to dismiss any murder charge like this one, since the evidence is not as clear cut. Once again, its your opinion. You could say, "I would have dismissed the case", but that doesn't mean you get to question the ethics of the people who disagree with you. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you start insulting other people or claiming that other people are amoral because they disagree with you, you open yourself to being yelled at. I didn't insult anyone in this thread, and I didn't claim that anyone here was amoral. I called into question the ethics of the prosecutors because they have shown that they have a severe lack of ethics. The lack of knowledge in how a jury will rule is entirely based on the fact that juries don't understand how to apply the law. If we knew that this jury was full of lawyers, it would be a virtual certainty that Zimmerman would be not-guilty. "Leaving it up to the jury" should be the last resort, not the first. That's why you need to have a case before you bring it to trial. The prosecutors didn't have a case. If my opinion is that the prosecution has absolutely no case whatsoever, and is well aware of that, then my opinion is that they have a lack of ethics. It's not a difference of opinion about whether or not they should have done A or B... it's a matter of intentionally trying to put an innocent man in prison because of political bias/gain. Then I would recommend the following: Voice your opinion that the prosecution has not case, but keep you opinion that they are unethical to yourself. Now you may say that you are entitled to your opinion and that is correct. However, I think some women are ugly and keep it to myself to avoid getting yelled at. This situation is similar, some people don't agree with your opinion and are willing to yell at you because of it. But if I feel they have no case then that necessitates a lack of ethics on their part. DA's have a responsibility to not prosecute when there is no case. It's not a A and B situation. If they have no case then they shouldn't have pretended they did.
Well I flat out disagree with you and think they may have had a case. I also think that you are using 20/20 hindsight and making a judgment based on that. I think your overly critical and naive as to how hand the prosecution's job is. Finally, I think your claim of lack of ethics for the prosecution is in poor taste and shows a level of immaturity and complete lack of understand as to how the process works. These are my opinions and I am entitled to them and will repeat them over and over because I am entitled to them, regardless how you respond.
But instead of saying that, I could just say, I disagree and the case should have gone to trial. Lets see how it works out.
Do you see how one leads to less conflict that the other?
|
Kay, but I don't mind when someone says what they actually think... and I would say that your opinion is not an example of showing hostility, but just airing the truth as you see it. 
|
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth.
|
I think he should have asked "would it be an appropriate response to punch me in the nose" rather than "would you personally punch me in the nose" to make it more applicable to this case.
|
On July 11 2013 03:28 Maeldun wrote:
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth.
Didnt the bullet forensics state that Trayvon's shirt had to be away from his body by several inches so he had to be on top at the time also prove that Zimmerman was most likely defending himself?
|
I'm confused, the defense set up the witness, then the prosecution cross examined, and then the defense came back...Why is the prosecution asking questions?
|
On July 11 2013 03:28 Maeldun wrote:
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth.
Zimmerman could also be lying. As well as the other witnesses. The judge, the jury, I could by lying to you right now.
The whole "you have to prove it" thing is the clutch. Can you prove John was lying? Because without proof that John is lying there is still reasonable doubt that he is telling the truth.
Most of the other testimonies/evidence either have conflicting experts, conflicting witness accounts, or can be argued one way or another.
This leans it heavily towards reasonable doubt.
John Good's testimony tips it to self defense.
|
On July 11 2013 03:35 ranshaked wrote:
I'm confused, the defense set up the witness, then the prosecution cross examined, and then the defense came back...Why is the prosecution asking questions?
you can do direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross, re-re-direct, re-re-cross, etc.
the scope of each is limited though (i.e., the re-cross is limited to issues discussed in the re-direct).
|
On July 11 2013 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:35 ranshaked wrote:
I'm confused, the defense set up the witness, then the prosecution cross examined, and then the defense came back...Why is the prosecution asking questions? you can do direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross, re-re-direct, re-re-cross, etc. the scope of each is limited though (i.e., the re-cross is limited to issues discussed in the re-direct).
Thanks, that makes sense.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 03:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:28 Maeldun wrote:
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth. Didnt the bullet forensics state that Trayvon's shirt had to be away from his body by several inches so he had to be on top at the time also prove that Zimmerman was most likely defending himself?
ya. He said that his shirt had to be away from his body 4-6 inches or so to get the bullet impact. He had to be on top of him with his wet shirt in order to get that.
On July 11 2013 03:35 ranshaked wrote:
I'm confused, the defense set up the witness, then the prosecution cross examined, and then the defense came back...Why is the prosecution asking questions?
I think it can go back and forth but my guess though. Anyone want to chime in?
|
On July 11 2013 03:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:28 Maeldun wrote:
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth. Didnt the bullet forensics state that Trayvon's shirt had to be away from his body by several inches so he had to be on top at the time also prove that Zimmerman was most likely defending himself?
It does support John Good's testimony.
John Good.
John Good.
Oh, did I mention, John Good.
(can't resist doing that every time I have to type John Good for this thead)
|
i love this guy. "anything is possible, but that doesnt make it plausible."
|
TLADT24920 Posts
O'Mara is laughing internally. Look at his face lol
|
On July 11 2013 03:40 BigFan wrote:
O'Mara is laughing internally. Look at his face lol
I saw that lol you could tell he was holding it back
|
On July 11 2013 03:28 Maeldun wrote:
Given that the whole prosecution is being thwarted by a single witness, does anyone feel that John Good is lying?
I chuckle inside every time a witness comes up to the stand, raises their right hand and promises, in front of God, that they will tell the truth.
Would you put yourself at risk of going to prison for your neighbors? Especially since there's no way he could know what the other neighbors saw, what evidence the police would find, and so on. He might be mistaken in what he saw but it's pretty silly to suggest he'd be lying unless you know something we don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
