EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 406
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Microchaton
France342 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:36 xDaunt wrote: Well, for as much as I have ragged on people in this thread for saying stupid shit, there is no denying that there are jurors and potential jurors out there who agree with that very same stupid shit. You really never know what you're gonna get when random members of the public walk through the door. Do you think if the jury got the impression that there was one "unreasonable" holdout that simply wasn't going to agree to a not guilty verdict, that they would come back and say they weren't going to be able to reach a verdict ? I think they are being methodical in reviewing all the evidence and they feel a responsibility to invest due time into reaching this verdict. A kid did die, after all. They haven't asked any questions, other than requesting the inventory listing, have they ? I don't read much more into the time spent yet, other than that they seem to be methodically considering the verdict. | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:44 ConGee wrote: What happens when there's a hung jury? prosecutor determines whether to retry the case or let it go. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:44 ConGee wrote: What happens when there's a hung jury? Another trial :D | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:44 ConGee wrote: What happens when there's a hung jury? + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
FatChicksUnited
Canada214 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote: prosecutor determines whether to retry the case or let it go. Is there any chance that they don't? From what I understand, it's usually very likely to be retried. Also, is all testimony re-presented as well, or do they just grab a new jury and slap the old evidence in front of them? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:50 FatChicksUnited wrote: Is there any chance that they don't? From what I understand, it's usually very likely to be retried. Also, is all testimony re-presented as well, or do they just grab a new jury and slap the old evidence in front of them? always a chance, but i think its likely there will be a retrial. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46214 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:11 dAPhREAk wrote: lets all laugh at the prosecutor. start at 10 minutes That was incredibly painful to watch. I applaud the doctor's ability to retain his demeanor while answering the same questions over and over again. | ||
|
MVega
763 Posts
On July 14 2013 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That was incredibly painful to watch. I applaud the doctor's ability to retain his demeanor while answering the same questions over and over again. Indeed. That guy is amazingly patient, and some of those questions he got asked were amazingly stupid. Pretty much the whole bloody nose thing was silly. :/ I'm guessing that guy never had a bloody nose because he seems to be under the impression that if you have a bloody nose you have issues swallowing and talking. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 04:50 FatChicksUnited wrote: Is there any chance that they don't? From what I understand, it's usually very likely to be retried. Also, is all testimony re-presented as well, or do they just grab a new jury and slap the old evidence in front of them? Witnesses are called, evidence presented, everything presented to a jury just as if the first trial never occurred. Other than the witnesses have already testified under oath, so if their testimony changes from the first trial, that can be used to discredit them. However, the trial proceeds as if it were the first time. | ||
|
boredrex
United States137 Posts
On July 14 2013 05:14 Kaitlin wrote: Witnesses are called, evidence presented, everything presented to a jury just as if the first trial never occurred. Other than the witnesses have already testified under oath, so if their testimony changes from the first trial, that can be used to discredit them. However, the trial proceeds as if it were the first time. The advantage is that both sides know what both sides have put on the table. So that entire text message thing might be ruled differently, the child abuse charges wouldn't be a surprise, ect.ect. If there is a retrial, I call shennagins. It's not that the prosecution sucked, it's that they were handed an impossible case. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On July 14 2013 05:04 MVega wrote: Indeed. That guy is amazingly patient, and some of those questions he got asked were amazingly stupid. Pretty much the whole bloody nose thing was silly. :/ I'm guessing that guy never had a bloody nose because he seems to be under the impression that if you have a bloody nose you have issues swallowing and talking. I'd be patient too if I was paid $400 an hour. | ||
|
Tennoji
78 Posts
If he said things like "these assholes always get away" all the time and never got into a fight with someone he thought was suspicious, it would indicate he was not looking for a fight. | ||
|
DwD
Sweden8621 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 06:27 Tennoji wrote: I was thinking it would be interesting to hear about previous calls GZ made to the police (emergency or non-emergency line), so we can hear if he used similar "tactics" and expressions those times. If he said things like "these assholes always get away" all the time and never got into a fight with someone he thought was suspicious, it would indicate he was not looking for a fight. they played a bunch of them during the trial where he was calling the cops on black people. some of whom were arrested. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22471 Posts
On July 14 2013 06:27 Tennoji wrote: I was thinking it would be interesting to hear about previous calls GZ made to the police (emergency or non-emergency line), so we can hear if he used similar "tactics" and expressions those times. If he said things like "these assholes always get away" all the time and never got into a fight with someone he thought was suspicious, it would indicate he was not looking for a fight. The thing is non of this is really important to the case other then as a back drop. It doesnt matter if Zimmerman started the fight. So long as he was fearing for his life at the moment he shot Trayvon he is legally in his right. Since the only reliable witness saw Trayvon on top hitting Zimmerman and refusing to stop when called out plus the wounds on Zimmermans head plus the gun forensics it all matches as a case of legitimate self defense. | ||
|
Zenocide
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24138 Posts
It will be totally legal for you to follow someone to their home convince them to hit you or hit them if no one is looking. start losing the fight (or in many peoples eyes here just get punched back) then it is reasonable to shoot the person you were fighting. Or better yet just shoot the guy for punching you in the first place since it's been hammered home that a small bump to the head is potentially life threatening. So according to many people here if someone starts a fight it is totally justified for either party of a fight to shoot the other one. So with the idea that someone can punch you then you punch them back they fear for their life and they shoot you, the only sensible thing is not to fight back but shoot anyone who punches you before they shoot you for punching them. Besides the fact that many people have maintained it doesn't matter who actually started the fight, there is no reason GZ's accounts should be taken seriously. He clearly has left out the actual facts leading up to the fight in every presentation so what actually happened in those moments is most definitely incriminating to GZ otherwise there would be no reason to lie about it and leave it out. | ||
| ||
