|
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 12:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:29 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty? The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased. Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty.
I agree that this bias isn't unjustified, I'm just saying there is definitely a bias.
|
On July 11 2013 12:47 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:34 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2013 12:29 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty? The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased. Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty. I agree that this bias isn't unjustified, I'm just saying there is definitely a bias.
you should read the original thread.
|
On July 11 2013 12:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:47 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:34 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2013 12:29 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty? The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased. Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty. I agree that this bias isn't unjustified, I'm just saying there is definitely a bias. you should read the original thread.
what's the original thread like? Is that when the media was trying to spin a sensational story and people were pulling out the torches and pitchforks against Zimmerman?
|
On July 11 2013 12:54 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 12:47 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:34 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2013 12:29 Tewks44 wrote:On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty? The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased. Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty. I agree that this bias isn't unjustified, I'm just saying there is definitely a bias. you should read the original thread. what's the original thread like? Is that when the media was trying to spin a sensational story and people were pulling out the torches and pitchforks against Zimmerman?
that is fairly accurate. ignore the op; it is not the original.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664
|
On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty?
The burden of proof the prosecution had to hit was pretty minimal since everything that had been presented in the case up to that point had to be interpreted in favor of them.
The jury is instructed to rule in that manner for Zimmerman, so if they follow the instructions, there's a pretty high chance of acquittal.
Of course, juries are juries.
|
On July 11 2013 09:27 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:15 scott31337 wrote:
My friend and I are wondering if Florida is going to riot after he's found not guilty, just like the OJ trial.
Why don't you take a peak at twitter then?
What's happening on Twitter?
|
I felt GZ's lawyers (West) were completely in the right to object to the judge asking GZ whether he'll testify or needed more time to decide. He may not have been fully prepared and counseled to the matter, and maybe...just possibly something happens before the defense rests that would affect his decision whether or not to testify.
He wasn't given proper time to counsel with his attorneys on the matter in regard to the defense not completing its case (his possible testimony aside). He also wasn't in the best position to tell the judge how much later he could make that decision. Either way, he'd be better off being able to consult with his attorney before being asked either of those questions. I don't know if that's the basis for Don West's objection, as the judge wouldn't let him speak.
|
On July 11 2013 14:16 Ansinjunger wrote:
I felt GZ's lawyers (West) were completely in the right to object to the judge asking GZ whether he'll testify or needed more time to decide. He may not have been fully prepared and counseled to the matter, and maybe...just possibly something happens before the defense rests that would affect his decision whether or not to testify.
He wasn't given proper time to counsel with his attorneys on the matter in regard to the defense not completing its case (his possible testimony aside). He also wasn't in the best position to tell the judge how much later he could make that decision. Either way, he'd be better off being able to consult with his attorney before being asked either of those questions. I don't know if that's the basis for Don West's objection, as the judge wouldn't let him speak.
they didnt know on the day they rest whether they intended to call him to the witness stand? lol.
|
On July 11 2013 14:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 14:16 Ansinjunger wrote:
I felt GZ's lawyers (West) were completely in the right to object to the judge asking GZ whether he'll testify or needed more time to decide. He may not have been fully prepared and counseled to the matter, and maybe...just possibly something happens before the defense rests that would affect his decision whether or not to testify.
He wasn't given proper time to counsel with his attorneys on the matter in regard to the defense not completing its case (his possible testimony aside). He also wasn't in the best position to tell the judge how much later he could make that decision. Either way, he'd be better off being able to consult with his attorney before being asked either of those questions. I don't know if that's the basis for Don West's objection, as the judge wouldn't let him speak. they didnt know on the day they rest whether they intended to call him to the witness stand? lol.
He had every right to reserve that decision until their scheduled witnesses had testified, did he not ? She asked before the last couple witnesses testified. I couldn't figure out if it was some appeal issue that she was establishing that he was not ready to make that decision, therefore some appeal issue is challenged.
|
On July 11 2013 14:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 14:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 14:16 Ansinjunger wrote:
I felt GZ's lawyers (West) were completely in the right to object to the judge asking GZ whether he'll testify or needed more time to decide. He may not have been fully prepared and counseled to the matter, and maybe...just possibly something happens before the defense rests that would affect his decision whether or not to testify.
He wasn't given proper time to counsel with his attorneys on the matter in regard to the defense not completing its case (his possible testimony aside). He also wasn't in the best position to tell the judge how much later he could make that decision. Either way, he'd be better off being able to consult with his attorney before being asked either of those questions. I don't know if that's the basis for Don West's objection, as the judge wouldn't let him speak. they didnt know on the day they rest whether they intended to call him to the witness stand? lol. He had every right to reserve that decision until their scheduled witnesses had testified, did he not ? She asked before the last couple witnesses testified. I couldn't figure out if it was some appeal issue that she was establishing that he was not ready to make that decision, therefore some appeal issue is challenged.
did she say "make your decision now!!"
or
did she say "do you need more time?"
|
She was asking him how much more time he needed, which is an unanswerable question.
edit: She asked various questions over the course of it, but she did ask the above before witnesses had finished, which was inappropriate. She kept asking after he said he had not made a decision yet / discussed it sufficiently.
|
On July 11 2013 14:51 Kaitlin wrote:
She was asking him how much more time he needed, which is an unanswerable question.
if you're an idiot maybe. this wasnt something unusual. she is trying to manage the time and make sure everything gets done. she is doing her job. defense were being idiots.
|
If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
|
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:
If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
|
On July 11 2013 14:15 HazMat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:27 PanN wrote:On July 11 2013 09:15 scott31337 wrote:
My friend and I are wondering if Florida is going to riot after he's found not guilty, just like the OJ trial.
Why don't you take a peak at twitter then? What's happening on Twitter?
If I had to guess, hash tags.
|
On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:
You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified.
So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
|
On July 11 2013 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:
You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified. So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
That's not what he said. If the jury convicts him, they might have other reasons than thinking the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction...
|
On July 11 2013 15:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:
If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it. im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
|
On July 11 2013 20:45 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 15:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:
If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it. im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths. So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow. I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
Lol..that's a bold move. Let's see how it plays out.
|
On July 11 2013 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:
You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified. So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
The only way that the jury convicts Zimmerman on the evidence presented is if the jury ignores the jury instructions. Sometimes juries do ignore the instructions, so it could happen. Still, it shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
