Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,849,164 times
Reputation: 11259

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
Exactly "what" evidence shows he didn't start it besides his own version of events?

It is apparent now that he was losing the fight but there is no evidence that he didn't, or didn't have a hand in starting the fight. And of course we don't have the other guy's side of the story.
The physical injuries to Zimmermen compared to no injuries, except the gunshot wound and a scraped knuckle, to Martin. There is not a real lot of evidence either way. It will be the prosecutor's job to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:02 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,883,741 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I would say the Martin side has a political agenda too. Would you not agree?
Yes, politics usually sneaks its ugly head into everything.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485
The heart of the entire matter is Zimmerman confronting a stranger, at night and precipitating the conflict.

Let's use a case for comparison.

Two cars with male drivers. One going too slow, the other tailgating. The tailgater gets extremely mad and frustrated. He pulls around the other driver and cuts him off, forcing him to pull over to the side of the road. The tailgater gets out of his car and approaches the slow driver and gets in his face yelling obcenities. The slow driver starts to punch the tailgater in the face. The tailgater pulls out a gun and shoots him. Who do you think goes to jail?????

The guy who got out of his car and confronted the slow driver. He instigated the whole chain of events. No difference between this and the TM case.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I agree with you. What Zimmermen did was grossly stupid. If you carry you should make every effort to avoid confrontation. Kind of a good idea even if you do not.

I see civil liability but no criminal liability here.
This is probably the likely scenario, IMO. Convicted of manslaughter and given a short prison sentence plus parole.

On the other hand, the civil suit will be a *****. No doubt that the preponderance of the evidence will show Zimmerman liable in Civil court and he will lose everything he has or will ever have.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,702 posts, read 13,559,539 times
Reputation: 17674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
The heart of the entire matter is Zimmerman confronting a stranger, at night and precipitating the conflict.

Let's use a case for comparison.

Two cars with male drivers. One going too slow, the other tailgating. The tailgater gets extremely mad and frustrated. He pulls around the other driver and cuts him off, forcing him to pull over to the side of the road. The tailgater gets out of his car and approaches the slow driver and gets in his face yelling obcenities. The slow driver starts to punch the tailgater in the face. The tailgater pulls out a gun and shoots him. Who do you think goes to jail?????

The guy who got out of his car and confronted the slow driver. He instigated the whole chain of events. No difference between this and the TM case.
You are right. This case is similar to a road rage incident with Zimmerman being the confronting a driver (Martin) who didn't realize they were doing anything wrong.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,849,164 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
The heart of the entire matter is Zimmerman confronting a stranger, at night and precipitating the conflict.
Of course, you have a legal right to confront strangers who you believe are "up to no good". Even if your reasons for believing so are not rational.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:31 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,487,434 times
Reputation: 4621
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Do you really know that prosecution "misled" the court? Of course she didn't! Saying the prosecution would falsify documents is absurd. They can check the dates on the passports. She didn't lie at all. He turned in the passport that had an expiration date of May 2012 instead of the newer one with the expiration date of 2014. In any case, he didn't run. Maybe that's why the judge believed the defense, since Mark O'Mara took full responsibility for the passport mix-up.

Corey stated that Zimmerman possessed two US Passports and didn't surrender them. That's not a lie and it's not misleading the court. Still, what GZ is saying is that he found the replacement for the passport he lost. I am editing this right now, because I can't type this sensibly. GZ lost a passport in 2004, then he found it, but he had a new one and the one he surrendered was the one he lost, but he lost the replacement and then found it, so he turned it over to his attorney. Okay.

I don't want to belabor this issue, since the judge dismissed it based on O'Mara's statement in court. I doubt if O'Mara would lie but it's also a defense attorney's job to get his client the very best representation possible. Now he just hired another attorney, so apparently he believes this case is even more difficult than he originally thought.

By the way, I watched Anderson Cooper last night talking to Mark O'Mara about the "code" Zimmerman and his wife were using, so they really were planning to lie about the money. There was no "misunderstanding" as many here have claimed.
I said "IF" the state misled the court because the motion to revoke bond said he turned in the old, expiring passport. Reports yesterday were not clear on which passport he turned in, so yes, the state may have misled the court. Either way..

It was a bad day for gz. The only spin or potential plus for him are reports the judge said his statements to the cops would likely bolster his defense.
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:51 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I said "IF" the state misled the court because the motion to revoke bond said he turned in the old, expiring passport. Reports yesterday were not clear on which passport he turned in, so yes, the state may have misled the court. Either way..

It was a bad day for gz. The only spin or potential plus for him are reports the judge said his statements to the cops would likely bolster his defense.
Do you think the motion was prosecutorial misconduct?
 
Old 06-02-2012, 02:08 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,487,434 times
Reputation: 4621
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Do you think the motion was prosecutorial misconduct?
No. Even if the motion was wrong about which passport gz turned in, the error isn't close to a misconduct level imo.

Whether in the long run Lester's comment that gz's statements to cops likely bolsters his case turns out to be more important than gz and his wife lying to the court, who knows. For now, bad day for gz. imo
 
Old 06-02-2012, 02:16 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
I do agree that there is not enough evidence to know exactly who hit whom and why GZ felt he had to shoot TM to stop the fight. To me, the only question will be the credibility of the defendant (Zimmerman) and the witnesses. Of course forensic evidence, medical statements, etc., should come into play, but we'll never know what really happened. I've said many times on CD that I believe Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her baby. I still do. However, there was no solid evidence to prove it. Still, as strong as my feelings are about that case, there is a little doubt in my mind that she actually did it. So maybe I'm only 95% convinced. As a juror, you are supposed to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What is reasonable? I think that's a big problem with juries today. For all we know, the word "reasonable" will work in the opposite way in Zimmerman's trial. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, I do agree that based on what we've heard, there just isn't enough evidence for a conviction.
The judge always instructs the jury on what is and is not reasonable doubt because that is the standard of proof in all criminal cases.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top