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.
The prosecution has to prove murder which will be a hell of a lot tougher than proving he was in fear for his life. His wounds tell that story for him since there is no possible way to PROVE a feeling.
No his wounds tell only of a well deserve azz kicking Besides how can you tell a good old fashion thumping to someone who was killed?
The prosecution has to prove murder which will be a hell of a lot tougher than proving he was in fear for his life. His wounds tell that story for him since there is no possible way to PROVE a feeling.
Really? His wounds do NOT prove he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm/injury and if he attempts to rely on that evidence alone before a jury, IMO, he will lose. And, yes, one way one "proves" a feeling in a court case is by convincing a judge or jury, with the passion and seeming truthfulness (appearance of credibility) of your testimony, that you were, indeed in fear for your life. Yes, that's true. It's done that way in court. As I said, it most often comes down to the defendant's credibility on the witness stand, unless, say, for example, Zimmerman's skull had been cracked and he was in the hospital in a coma for a period of time after the incident. If that had been the case, or he had had comparable physical injuries, he would never have been charged, or the case would have immediately been thrown out through an immunity hearing.
Seems to me that what YOU consider proof and what you think is allowed as evidence in a criminal case is different from what the laws and rules of criminal procedure allow. There is no absolute "proof" in trials and there is no absolute "truth." Juries used their everyday common sense to determine the credibility of witnesses just as they do in every-day life. That is also part of what the Judge tells them in the final Jury Instructions.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 07-13-2012 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: added two sentences.
And that right there my friend, and I use that term as loosely as possible, is the smoking gun for self defense.
In Zimmerman's case, the wounds do not equal the smoking gun. The seriousness and extent of his wounds, I think, will be the topic of trial testimony from medical experts on both sides of this case.
Two of the components of the self-defense law are:
1. In fear for your life or great bodily harm/injury.
2. You exhausted every reasonable avenue of escape before your use of deadly force.
There isn't even circumstantial evidence that anything like that happened, it's pure speculation and the defense will have a field day with that.
There is circumstantial evidence regarding what happened between Martin and Zimmerman. Perhaps you don't understand what circumstantial evidence is. Zimmerman's lawyer has already made the statement that defending Zimmerman is going to be a long, hard fight. If this were such a slam dunk case, the defense would have asked for an immunity hearing and it would have been thrown out long ago.
Funny, I don't get why some people are getting angry at others for simply doing the same thing the are, which is expressing their opinion. Telling people not to discuss in a discussion forum is idiotic.
Really? His wounds do NOT prove he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm/injury and if he attempts to rely on that evidence alone before a jury, IMO, he will lose. And, yes, one way one "proves" a feeling in a court case is by convincing a judge or jury, with the passion and seeming truthfulness (appearance of credibility) of your testimony, that you were, indeed in fear for your life. Yes, that's true. It's done that way in court. As I said, it most often comes down to the defendant's credibility on the witness stand, unless, say, for example, Zimmerman's skull had been cracked and he was in the hospital in a coma for a period of time after the incident. If that had been the case, or he had had comparable physical injuries, he would never have been charged, or the case would have immediately been thrown out through an immunity hearing.
Seems to me that what YOU consider proof and what you think is allowed as evidence in a criminal case is different from what the laws and rules of criminal procedure allow. There is no absolute "proof" in trials and there is no absolute "truth." Juries used their everyday common sense to determine the credibility of witnesses just as they do in every-day life. That is also part of what the Judge tells them in the final Jury Instructions.
I'm confused. GZ has not been charged with a hate crime, so why would this racial bias issue be brought up?
If this woman testifies, indeed the mutual restraining orders will/could be used as exhibits. Her background and experiences with GZ will be explored with her if she takes the stand, which includes the domestic violence record, PLUS her knowledge of his "bad temper."
Now why would the State bring up racial bias in this case? It's my understanding that Zimmerman's position is that the burglaries in that community had been committed by black males, therefore, he noticed that TM was a black male. The FBI has determined there was no racial bias, so, again, WHY would the State try to make that an issue? This woman's testimony that Zimmerman is not a racist would have little value for the state and I can't think of a lot of reasons why the defense could want to use it and plant that issue in the minds of jurors.
However, Zimmerman's temper and propensity for violence, IMO, will be an issue.
And, yes, again, if you don't get it, Zimmerman's credibility will be critical in this trial.
Next you'll be telling me that racial bias is going to be the major defense issue.
I said that if the FBI finds someone who'll say gz was a racist, it would help the state. The reason is that they would use it to prove gz acted out of ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, an element of murder 2 in Fl. standard jury instructions.
The state was going to use the mutual restraining orders IMO. Now we know if they do, the woman will also testify that gz never confronted anyone else; Despite the violence against her, she resumed contact with him; he wouldn't initiate a confrontation. IMO, comments like that from a woman he'd had serious problems with a few years before will imo be a + for gz.
I said that if the FBI finds someone who'll say gz was a racist, it would help the state. The reason is that they would use it to prove gz acted out of ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, an element of murder 2 in Fl. standard jury instructions.
The state was going to use the mutual restraining orders IMO. Now we know if they do, the woman will also testify that gz never confronted anyone else; Despite the violence against her, she resumed contact with him; he wouldn't initiate a confrontation. IMO, comments like that from a woman he'd had serious problems with a few years before will imo be a + for gz.
I'm under the impression that the FBI investigation is over. The document released in the court file was a report of the investigation, if I remember correctly. ONE person who says Zimmerman was racist versus all the people who said he was not racist wouldn't go very far to help the State's case, IMO. And, of course, as far as we know right now, there is NOT one person the FBI found who said that Zimmerman was a racist.
I disagree regarding the ex-girlfriend's possible testimony. IMO, it is generally well known in the public that many women who are victims of domestic abuse often do continue contact/relationships with their abusers. That continued contact/relationship with their abuser does NOT mean that the abuser has "changed." Also, once she is on the witness stand, the state controls the direction of her testimony as it will be doing direct examination and focus the questions on the content of the restraining orders and HER relationship with Zimmerman and the violence in THAT relationship. That can certainly be a can of worms. She cannot just offer up testimony without being asked a specific question. She can testify that TO HER KNOWLEDGE Zimmerman never confronted anyone else, but that can be easily countered by other witnesses who did perceive Zimmerman as hot tempered and confrontational as well as the State pointing out through questions that she was not with Zimmerman 100% of the time, so she would have to admit that there COULD have been confrontations with others about which she knew nothing. Of course, the defense could come in on cross and try to rehabilitate her testimony in favor of Zimmerman, but unless the State asks questions about Zimmerman and racism, they can't go there, so the defense, IMO, won't be able to get much mileage, if any, out of this witness in their favor. She'll say he wasn't
confrontational with others, then the state would come back and ask if she was with zimmerman 100% of the time, and it would end up sort of a wash with the jury having to decide how "objective" her testimony was regarding Z, other than the domestic violence documents (restraining orders) which would be entered as exhibits.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 07-13-2012 at 04:10 PM..
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.
Besides how can you tell a good old fashion thumping to someone who was killed?
