|
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 04:49 Defacer wrote:
What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means.
It's pathetic.
|
On July 11 2013 04:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Not better for George Zimmerman.
I have a feeling Adam Pollack is about to get screwed.
edit: Oh, wait, I thought he was the "best friend". I got the wrong guy.
That depends. If he is found guilty, you're right, it isn't better for him. But a not guilty rendered by a jury bodes far better post trial than an acquittal does in terms of how the public perceives the case.
|
On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote:
What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ...
I think the problem there is that it still doesn't counter the claim of self-defense - even if he known as a vigilante racist dickbag who went out looking for a criminal to "arrest"... it still doesn't mean that he couldn't have found himself in an altercation where he felt his life was in jeopardy and used legitimate self-defense.
|
On July 11 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Not better for George Zimmerman.
I have a feeling Adam Pollack is about to get screwed.
edit: Oh, wait, I thought he was the "best friend". I got the wrong guy. That depends. If he is found guilty, you're right, it isn't better for him. But a not guilty rendered by a jury bodes far better post trial than an acquittal does in terms of how the public perceives the case.
a jury acquittal is so much much much much harder to overturn on appeal than a judge's acquittal. if the court of appeal overturns the judge's decision then zimmerman has to re-do the whole trial.
|
This first "rebuttal" witness is going to backfire on the prosecution. They are shooting themselves in the foot here. Not gonna leave a good impression on the jury. This witness is gonna shut them down, if it even gets past this sidebar. They will even look bad if the witness is excused per the sidebar, as this is all in front of the jury, and they asked one question, which was vehemently denied.
|
On July 11 2013 04:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote:
What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ... Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means. It's pathetic.
to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help?
All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
|
On July 11 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 04:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Not better for George Zimmerman.
I have a feeling Adam Pollack is about to get screwed.
edit: Oh, wait, I thought he was the "best friend". I got the wrong guy. That depends. If he is found guilty, you're right, it isn't better for him. But a not guilty rendered by a jury bodes far better post trial than an acquittal does in terms of how the public perceives the case. a jury acquittal is so much much much much harder to overturn on appeal than a judge's acquittal. if the court of appeal overturns the judge's decision then zimmerman has to re-do the whole trial.
I wasn't aware that a jury verdict of acquittal could be overturned. Is this only in cases of some sort of jury tampering, improper conduct of the jury situations ?
|
On July 11 2013 04:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:42 Kaitlin wrote:
MOM: Could someone please articulate one specific scenario representing the prosecution's theory of the case such that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense doesn't hold up beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge: Motion denied. Bring in the jury. Hence my objection to both the prosecution and the judge. Prosecution should not "cast doubt on the defense". That is the job of the defense, to cast doubt. The trial is a farce, continuing it is continuing a farce.
Once you are this far, you go all the way. No need to have the judge's ruling appealed when the jury can decide it once and for all.
|
On July 11 2013 04:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 04:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Not better for George Zimmerman.
I have a feeling Adam Pollack is about to get screwed.
edit: Oh, wait, I thought he was the "best friend". I got the wrong guy. That depends. If he is found guilty, you're right, it isn't better for him. But a not guilty rendered by a jury bodes far better post trial than an acquittal does in terms of how the public perceives the case. a jury acquittal is so much much much much harder to overturn on appeal than a judge's acquittal. if the court of appeal overturns the judge's decision then zimmerman has to re-do the whole trial. I wasn't aware that a jury verdict of acquittal could be overturned. Is this only in cases of some sort of jury tampering, improper conduct of the jury situations ?
I have only seen it when improper jury instructions, though I am sure there are other reasons out there.
|
On July 11 2013 04:57 AimForTheBushes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote:
What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ... Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means. It's pathetic. to be fair.. what evidence to they actually have to work with, other than unreliable "witnesses" (aka Trayvon's family) saying that they're sure that it was his voice yelling for help? All physical evidence and the only eyewitness points to Zimmerman being the one getting a beating before defending himself with his gun.
Yeah, not to mention their entire lineup of "ear" witnesses they started with have been tossed aside because they now have to concede that Trayvon was on top.
|
On July 11 2013 04:57 Kaitlin wrote:
This first "rebuttal" witness is going to backfire on the prosecution. They are shooting themselves in the foot here. Not gonna leave a good impression on the jury. This witness is gonna shut them down, if it even gets past this sidebar. They will even look bad if the witness is excused per the sidebar, as this is all in front of the jury, and they asked one question, which was vehemently denied.
That's the point. The prosecution is trying to suggest that Zimmerman received improper training which could lead him to recklessly engage Trayvon. That's why the defense objected.
|
On July 11 2013 04:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 04:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Not better for George Zimmerman.
I have a feeling Adam Pollack is about to get screwed.
edit: Oh, wait, I thought he was the "best friend". I got the wrong guy. That depends. If he is found guilty, you're right, it isn't better for him. But a not guilty rendered by a jury bodes far better post trial than an acquittal does in terms of how the public perceives the case. a jury acquittal is so much much much much harder to overturn on appeal than a judge's acquittal. if the court of appeal overturns the judge's decision then zimmerman has to re-do the whole trial. I wasn't aware that a jury verdict of acquittal could be overturned. Is this only in cases of some sort of jury tampering, improper conduct of the jury situations ?
it is hard, but it is possible. it is much easier to overturn a judge's decision.
|
Lol, the look on the gym dudes face as he strutted out was pretty hilarious. He definitely thinks he's the shit.
|
I must've missed it but which witness(es) characterized Zimmerman as a wannabe cop? Or is that just the state's narrative? Closest testimony I heard was that Zimmerman was studying criminal justice.
|
On July 11 2013 05:00 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:57 Kaitlin wrote:
This first "rebuttal" witness is going to backfire on the prosecution. They are shooting themselves in the foot here. Not gonna leave a good impression on the jury. This witness is gonna shut them down, if it even gets past this sidebar. They will even look bad if the witness is excused per the sidebar, as this is all in front of the jury, and they asked one question, which was vehemently denied. That's the point. The prosecution is trying to suggest that Zimmerman received improper training which could lead him to recklessly engage Trayvon. That's why the defense objected.
I don't think they are saying the training Zimmerman received was improper. What was improper about heavy bag, shadow boxing, etc ? It was their attempt to claim that he was marketing the training he provided to Zimmerman, which he really wasn't doing. It's all about a page on the Gym's website.
Having said that, they excused the jury, but then took a 15 minute recess. I thought they were going to have a hearing of some sort. Did they go in camera ?
|
On July 11 2013 04:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:49 Defacer wrote:
What the hell IS the prosecution's theory of the case? Do they even have a singular argument?
I would have though that the characterization of Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, that thought he had the authority or ability to take matters into his own hands, would have been the strongest and most consistent argument. But it doesn't sound like that's their argument ... Thats the huge problem here. They haven't provided anything. They've just said: "Well maybe it happened some other way." without defining exactly what that means. It's pathetic.
I just find the concept of arguing without having an actual point really, really strange. It's like they're planning to fail.
|
On July 11 2013 05:04 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:00 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 04:57 Kaitlin wrote:
This first "rebuttal" witness is going to backfire on the prosecution. They are shooting themselves in the foot here. Not gonna leave a good impression on the jury. This witness is gonna shut them down, if it even gets past this sidebar. They will even look bad if the witness is excused per the sidebar, as this is all in front of the jury, and they asked one question, which was vehemently denied. That's the point. The prosecution is trying to suggest that Zimmerman received improper training which could lead him to recklessly engage Trayvon. That's why the defense objected. I don't think they are saying the training Zimmerman received was improper. What was improper about heavy bag, shadow boxing, etc ? It was their attempt to claim that he was marketing the training he provided to Zimmerman, which he really wasn't doing. It's all about a page on the Gym's website. Having said that, they excused the jury, but then took a 15 minute recess. I thought they were going to have a hearing of some sort. Did they go in camera ?
Fair enough, I didn't think of it like that, but it makes sense. I don't understand why the defense would object though after he replied he no longer advertises the methods he teaches Zimmerman if it would help their case.
|
On July 11 2013 05:01 farvacola wrote:
Lol, the look on the gym dudes face as he strutted out was pretty hilarious. He definitely thinks he's the shit.
wait, was he dismissed?
|
This is what this rebuttal situation is all about. Prosecution calls this "marketing".
http://www.kogym.com/zimmerman.htm
edit:
It's not marketing. It's "Leave us the fuck alone with all your requests."
|
most likely related to press inquiries, not prospective gym members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
