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.
Sorry but I am right as always. I am a 20 year former infantry Army veteran who fought the communists for your rights. You need to respect what I say. You owe it to me.
No one on this board "owes" you something. Looking at your posting history, this is especially true.
Exactly where did you get the idea that the defense would even be allowed to mention the immunity hearing to a jury during a trial???? Exactly where in the rules of criminal procedure does it say that the defense can/could even mention the immunity hearing during the trial? Besides it wouldn't be the defense (Zimmerman team) who would want to bring up a loss at a stand your ground hearing. It would be the State.
It certainly seems to me that the Zimmerman team waived the immunity hearing because they did not feel confident of a win and they did not want to reveal their entire case and case strategy to the State PRIOR to the trial starting if they lost at the immunity hearing.
It would be an evidence issue, not a procedural issue. Of course the state would bring it up, if it could, which is why not having the hearing was a good move. It is possible that FL has a specific rule that prohibits the use of the stand your ground hearing at the trial, but if not, I would think that it is relevant and I am sure the state would bring it in, so Zimmerman would need to spend his time defending that hearing instead of concentrating on self-defense.
I totally agree about the media. I'm not so sure he will serve time. This morning in the hearing the prosecution had to admit that their primary witness, the girl who was supposedly on the phone with Trayvon at the time, lied under oath.
And the article goes on to say that this comes on the heels of other credibility issues for this witness. The charging documents for this case relied heavily on her statements, so this is not good for the prosecution.
I don't know why anyone finds this news.....I doubted her credibility from the start. The whole thing was tragic and should not have happened and there is enough blame to go around, on both sides. The media and his family have turned his death into a circus. Between this and the awful shooting in Conn., the media and certain segments of the population has turned this country into a laughing stock.....JMO.
It would be an evidence issue, not a procedural issue. Of course the state would bring it up, if it could, which is why not having the hearing was a good move. It is possible that FL has a specific rule that prohibits the use of the stand your ground hearing at the trial, but if not, I would think that it is relevant and I am sure the state would bring it in, so Zimmerman would need to spend his time defending that hearing instead of concentrating on self-defense.
I would think that the immunity hearing outcome, like any other prior criminal history, would not be admissible in a trial. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be seen as prejudicial to the defendant, and sort of like getting tried TWICE for the same crime. Off the top of my head, I don't think evidence that a judge did not rule that the crime was a stand your ground incident and would not dismiss the case would be admissible in a trial for the same incident. You do realize that prior criminal history of a defendant is not admissible in a trial unless it meets certain requirements of the Williams Rule?
Seems that the real liability for the defense in having a stand your ground hearing that they were not enormously confident in winning is that they would be revealing THEIR ENTIRE CASE and CASE STRATEGY to the State PRIOR TO TRIAL if they lost the immunity hearing.
...snipped...He's a loose cannon, and if he took the stand, then evidence of his lack of credibility may have been permissible, whereas, if he does not take the stand, certain important evidence of his credibility problems probably cannot be put into evidence.
What cred problems ? I haven't seen or heard of any except possibly that he used some of his donated money for living expenses and that was more judgment that credibility, IMO.
It seems to me that everything he said has appeared to be truthful. The media is the one that has distorted the facts. Look what the media did with the 911 call, editing out part of the call to make it look racist......look at the prosecution holding out photographs that showed more clearly the injuries that he sustained.....
I am not completely in GZ's camp but, I darn sure am not relying on the media to make me believe everything about this case.
Not sure you know what "Fact means".
I've read that he was following him, but LOST him and was going back to his car when he was attacked by Martin.
LOL. Don't let a little fact get in the way....right ? I will be so glad when this goes to trial and whatever the outcome, it will be laid to rest. This has become such a circus, nothing good will come out of it.
The Emmit Till case was a travesty of justice and, if the truth were told, was an unforgivable sin against another human being. Hopefully, we learned from it as the story has come out. But, the Trayvon/Zimmerman case has been so misrepresented, it will be hard to gain anything positive from it.
It seems like "payback" time has come around and we are pulling further and further apart as human beings.
What cred problems ? I haven't seen or heard of any except possibly that he used some of his donated money for living expenses and that was more judgment that credibility, IMO.
It seems to me that everything he said has appeared to be truthful. The media is the one that has distorted the facts. Look what the media did with the 911 call, editing out part of the call to make it look racist......look at the prosecution holding out photographs that showed more clearly the injuries that he sustained.....
I am not completely in GZ's camp but, I darn sure am not relying on the media to make me believe everything about this case.
If you line up gz's statements to the cops, his video renactment, his tv interviews, you'll find some inconsistencies or lies, depending on what you prefer to call them. He also made a few statements that I think many people will just find hard to believe. You're right about the general media bias against gz, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have any credibility problems based on his own words.
LOL. Don't let a little fact get in the way....right ? I will be so glad when this goes to trial and whatever the outcome, it will be laid to rest. This has become such a circus, nothing good will come out of it.
The Emmit Till case was a travesty of justice and, if the truth were told, was an unforgivable sin against another human being. Hopefully, we learned from it as the story has come out. But, the Trayvon/Zimmerman case has been so misrepresented, it will be hard to gain anything positive from it.
It seems like "payback" time has come around and we are pulling further and further apart as human beings.
If you're read nothing but what's in the "media" about the Zimmerman case, how do you know that it has been "so misrepresented"? You have nothing from the case to use for comparison to what the media has been saying it seems.
Ah, no. You could at least try to post factual information. Try actually listening to the 911 tape. Zimmerman leaves is truck and is running after Martin for several seconds (~30?). You clearly hear labored breathing and the sound of running feet. Only then does the dispatcher ask "are you following him". When Z replies "yes", she states "we don't need you to do that". At that point the sounds of running stop and his breathing slows, and he answers OK. All indicating that he complied with the suggestion by dispatch.
All this occurs within about 250 feet of the door to the house where Martin is staying. Zimmerman remains on the phone with dispatch for minutes after stopping his observation of M. We don't know exactly what happens before Martin attacks George, but it's hard not to wonder...if he was so scared of the big Hispanic dude, why didn't he just go inside his father's house, in the minutes after he lost him?
Ok, I stand corrected. But Zimmerman was following him on foot, for 30 seconds according to you. We don't know if he stopped. You're inferring it, but it is just as likely that he continued following him. And before that he had been tailing him in his truck. If you had a stranger chasing you in the dark, especially one with a gun, wouldn't you be scared and attempt to defend yourself?
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.
Exactly where in the rules of criminal procedure does it say that the defense can/could even mention the immunity hearing during the trial?
Besides it wouldn't be the defense (Zimmerman team) who would want to bring up a loss at a stand your ground hearing.
It would be the State. 
True.