Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't it interesting that NBC Today show or Nightly News has NOT ONCE mentioned this on the air, has NOT ONCE mentioned they edited the tape in the first place?
And one by one, the liars and race baiters fall. Hopefully, by the time this goes to trial, their lies will be forgotten.
Any word on whether NBC has been fined? If they haven't been, they should be. Or better yet, shut down, permanently.
I always said that Zimmerman's own words will be the hammers that secure the nails to the door of his own coffin. In terms of his defense, he may well be his own worst enemy. I believe O'mara is suddenly beginning to realize just how much of an uphill battle he has in proving self-defense.
One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon.
The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said.
Very weak when did he say he tried to cover his mouth? Very well could have been before or after the call where the screams are heard.
Quote:
Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, and the two struggled over it.
Those portions of Zimmerman's account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.
Better but struggle doesn't necessarily mean Trayvon got his hands on it.
Quote:
Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:
Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.
Seems like something you should mention on a 911 call but if I recall the transcript ends with Zimmerman saying Trayvon was walking towards him. So if the call ended as Trayvon was walking towards him Trayvon hadn't had a chance to "circle" his vehicle.
Have I missed big news or am I confused by the language.
The affirmative defense of self-defense is used at a trial, I thought. Is that also the term used for the immunity defense under syg ?
Though the state can't prove a negative, in an immunity hearing they must at least convince a judge that whatever evidence gz offers is insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did act in lawful self-defense.
You are correct the affirmative defense of self-defense is used at a trial.
An immunity hearing is not a trial, so technically he does not "offer up" a "defense", but attempt to prove before a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence he deserves immunity under the SYG law.
Also, there was much back and forth about the question what if GZ is considered the aggressor can the judge still rule immunity, it was very confusing, but I did find out that yes it is possible that GZ can still be immune from all charges according to this Florida Statute 776.041
Use of force by aggressor
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
You are correct the affirmative defense of self-defense is used at a trial.
An immunity hearing is not a trial, so technically he does not "offer up" a "defense", but attempt to prove before a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence he deserves immunity under the SYG law.
Also, there was much back and forth about the question what if GZ is considered the aggressor can the judge still rule immunity, it was very confusing, but I did find out that yes it is possible that GZ can still be immune from all charges according to this Florida Statute 776.041
Use of force by aggressor
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
That's how I understand it...
My understanding is that there is a difference in the way a criminal trial proceeds when a defendant files an affirmative defense from the procedures in just a normal, criminal case where the defendant proceeds with the presumption of innocence.
When there is an affirmative defense asserted, what that means is that the defendant has to put on evidence to prove that affirmative defense, in this case self defense. When asserting self defense in a criminal trial, when it is the defense's turn to put on their case, they have to put on witnesses and any forensics experts they can, or any expert reports, to prove the killing was self defense. In this case that would probably mean that Zimmerman would possibly take the stand to tell his story, AND BE CROSS EXAMINED by the state. That's a huge, big deal for a defendant to take the stand and subject him/herself to cross examination. Risky business for Zimmerman. He has a quick temper and seems to forget things he has said previously, which means he can be impeached because the State will have transcripts of every sworn statement he has ever given in this case. They could make him look like he is very manipulative and a liar. Defense attorneys hate when their client have to take the stand.
Ordinarily in criminal trials the defendant is not required to put on any case/evidence at all because he/she is presumed innocent. What they do at trial under those circumstances, if they decide not to put on any evidence,(they can if they want to but are not required to do so) is just try to discredit the states witnesses during cross examination, and win on closing arguments.
In an immunity hearing for SYG, the defendant is again required to put on evidence. The state is also required to put on evidence. Then the judge decides who had the most compelling evidence (standard of proof in this type of hearing is a preponderance of the evidence NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of evidence standard is not as difficult as beyond a reasonable doubt. And a judge is making that call, not a jury). So if the judge decides that Zimmerman put on the most credible evidence, say 51 %, and the state put on about 49% credible evidence, then Zimmerman would win.
An immunity hrg must be requested by the defendant. It will not happen otherwise. If the defendant chooses to have an immunity hearing and loses, he has to go to a criminal trial at a later date, and then he's in a tough spot because he has then revealed his entire case to the State and they will be much more prepared for his witnesses, etc. So asking for an immunity hearing can be risky business.
Either way, in this case, because Zimmerman has asserted the affirmative defense of self defense, he will have to put on evidence.
If it comes down to a criminal trial only, then the state will put on evidence to prove the elements of the 2nd degree murder charge, which would also include elements of the lesser includeds. Zimmerman's attorney will attempt to discredit the State's witnesses via cross examination. Then the defense will put on their case/evidence. The State will attempt to discredit Zimmerman's witnesses via cross examination. The State always starts the trial with their case/evidence; when State finishes and rests their case, then the defense puts on their case/evidence.
Statement 1: True/or to grocery store
Statement 2: True/or was casing the place for future crime
Statement 3: True/.......but, but, Trayvon threw the first punch.
I'm glad he doesn't live in my neighborhood. So what you are telling me is that if a man follows me with a gun, I have no right to defend myself? Seriously, I'm not 17, but when I was injured and walking with a cane, if I kept noticing a man was following me and, as Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher, it was raining, I might wonder why he was chasing me in the dark. Is he about to attack me? So if I smashed him over the head with my cane, I guess I'd be dead and he could claim self defense. Nobody can tell me he didn't have his gun withdrawn from its holster. He even said to the 911 dispatcher that he lost sight of "the kid" and didn't know where he was. If he thought he was a prowler and, as he put it, up to no good, he certainly wouldn't have been casually strolling back to his SUV.
So far THREE NBC employees have lost their jobs over the intentional racist editing of the 9/11 tape.
[url=http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/lilia-luciano-fired-misleading-edit_b125484]Another Misleading Edit Costs Another NBC News Employee Her Job - TVNewser[/url]
Isn't it interesting that NBC Today show or Nightly News has NOT ONCE mentioned this on the air, has NOT ONCE mentioned they edited the tape in the first place?
Intentional? First of all, it's been called "a botched editing job" and these people are scapegoats. Do you know how often tapes are edited?
I would like to know one person who was influenced by listening to the Today Show. Just one - put up your hand!
Almost everyone has heard the entire 911 call and read the transcript from it. I didn't see any posts from you criticizing Andrew Breitbart who intentionally edited a 3 minute misleading clip from a 43 minute speech. He claimed a Black woman was biased toward White farmers, when she was saying the exact opposite.
I don't know how you can even pretend to be unbiased, since you posted that NBC took a "disastrous lurch to the Left" in another post and are always complaining about the liberal media. I guess we can only reply on Fox to tell us the truth.
By the way, I listened to the 911 call directly from the Sanford Police web site. Zimmerman did say "he's got his hands in his waistband and he's a Black male." However, the first time he mentioned race was when the dispatcher asked. I didn't hear any racist remarks in the tape, but he sure was convinced Trayvon Martin was a criminal for some reason.
Either way, in this case, because Zimmerman has asserted the affirmative defense of self defense, he will have to put on evidence.
I got you and yes I do know that GZ has to request the hearing...
My question is why wouldn't he take a chance in an immunity hearing, either way he has to put on evidence/case to prove that affirmative defense and the prosecution will also have to present their evidence/case, so both sides are exposed. Since the standard of proof in this type of hearing is a preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt he may have a better chance with a judge that is familiar with the SYG/JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE Statute. It's a win-win or lose-lose either way.
Intentional? First of all, it's been called "a botched editing job" and these people are scapegoats. Do you know how often tapes are edited?
I would like to know one person who was influenced by listening to the Today Show. Just one - put up your hand!
Almost everyone has heard the entire 911 call and read the transcript from it. I didn't see any posts from you criticizing Andrew Breitbart who intentionally edited a 3 minute misleading clip from a 43 minute speech. He claimed a Black woman was biased toward White farmers, when she was saying the exact opposite.
I don't know how you can even pretend to be unbiased, since you posted that NBC took a "disastrous lurch to the Left" in another post and are always complaining about the liberal media. I guess we can only reply on Fox to tell us the truth.
By the way, I listened to the 911 call directly from the Sanford Police web site. Zimmerman did say "he's got his hands in his waistband and he's a Black male." However, the first time he mentioned race was when the dispatcher asked. I didn't hear any racist remarks in the tape, but he sure was convinced Trayvon Martin was a criminal for some reason.
Every time I come to one of these threads I ask myself why I bother with some people yet I keep coming back for more . Anyway, this is true. I personally don't think NBC news should have fired anyone. Other networks, including the beloved Fox News have done the same thing and no one got in trouble. Anyone who can't distinguish propaganda from fact is not going to change their mind based on some insignificant edit. The same people complaining about NBC have no issues with the right wing blogs who posted lies and pictures that they claimed were TM and weren't even him. Crucify NBC, but it is okay when Fox and right wing blogs do it.
Every time I come to one of these threads I ask myself why I bother with some people yet I keep coming back for more . Anyway, this is true. I personally don't think NBC news should have fired anyone. Other networks, including the beloved Fox News have done the same thing and no one got in trouble. Anyone who can't distinguish propaganda from fact is not going to change their mind based on some insignificant edit. The same people complaining about NBC have no issues with the right wing blogs who posted lies and pictures that they claimed were TM and weren't even him. Crucify NBC, but it is okay when Fox and right wing blogs do it.
Proof, please. Give us videos. Not babbling blogs but actual unedited videos. You can't because it's not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Anyway, this is true. I personally don't think NBC news should have fired anyone. Other networks, including the beloved Fox News have done the same thing and no one got in trouble. Anyone who can't distinguish propaganda from fact is not going to change their mind based on some insignificant edit. The same people complaining about NBC have no issues with the right wing blogs who posted lies and pictures that they claimed were TM and weren't even him. Crucify NBC, but it is okay when Fox and right wing blogs do it.