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 12-05-2012, 09:57 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,382,591 times
Reputation: 1173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
Actually Zimmerman's statements to the police are already a matter of record. There is no reason he should have to take the stand to convince the jury of anything or subject himself to cross examination. It is the prosecuting attorney's job to prove Zimmerman is guilty.
Do you know what it means in a criminal case when the defense files an affirmative defense? Zimmerman's attorney has already filed the affirmative defense of self defense. What that means is that in this case Zimmerman has to put on a case, a defense. What evidence is Zimmerman going to present that he was in fear for his life? HE HAS TO PUT ON A CASE AT THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE HAS FILED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE which requires that he put on a defense during the trial.....check that out and see what it means.

All those statements by Zimmerman which are "on the record" out there are exactly the statements the State would use to impeach him if he takes the stand. I don't see how he gets around taking the stand to testify that he felt in fear for his life? Maybe they will just put on medical experts, etc., and try to slide by like that. However, I think the jury is going to want to hear from Zimmerman when his side puts on their case, and the jury is not going to be impressed that Zim wouldn't take the stand.

If he had not filed an affirmative defense, he could have just sat there and would not have had to put on a case at all,(Presumption of Innocence) and his defense attorney would have to win by blowing holes in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on cross examination. Then his attorney would have to present a spectacularly convincing closing argument to win. That's a pretty hard way to win a case like this.

CptnRn, are you a cop or a retired cop?

 
Old 12-05-2012, 10:08 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,382,591 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
Do you call it splitting hairs when you lie about what the dispatcher said? Or is that simply lying and you are comfortable with that?

The 911 dispatcher did not say "do not go after Martin". They said "we don't need you to do that". They did not say "don't do that", or "we forbid you to do that", or "we order you to not do that", or "you should not do that" or anything of the sort.




It amazes me how many of the people who are defending Martin either are ignorant of the facts that have been reported or insist on lying and twisting the facts to try and support what they "imagined" happened.

Stick to the facts, the truth is your friend!
You're splitting hairs and fragmenting the evidence. Surely you've seen enough trials to know how evidence is presented in a way so as to tell the whole story, and they do NOT split hairs like you're doing with what the dispatcher said. It is clear to any rational person that the dispatcher is saying basically, don't follow the guy." The defense attorney can ask questions of the dispatcher on cross examination to try to weaken his credibility, but jurors use their everyday common sense with regard to judging the credibility of the witnesses. (That's actually part of the jury instructions which the judge will give the jury before they go out for deliberation).

I would suggest that you really don't know much about the totality of the "facts" in this case. Have you bothered to read the online court file where the discovery evidence was turned over and filed? Perhaps that would give you at least a better overview of what evidence has been released.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 07:29 AM
 
3,436 posts, read 2,938,810 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
So....... how about waiting for the "Factsplease"........ since you don't have all the facts.
How about you do the same or better yet tell it to those who are calling Trayvon Martin a thugh and making things up about him. They say he was casing houses, obviously you have no issue with that lie. The facts are that George Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer and domestic violence.

On a side note - I love the posters that give out rep points just to call me names. I am not anti-gun just because I don't think people like Zimmerman should be allowed to follow people, confront them and then claim self defense after they kill them.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 07:36 AM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,466,219 times
Reputation: 4619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Factsplease View Post
How about you do the same or better yet tell it to those who are calling Trayvon Martin a thugh and making things up about him? They say he was casing houses, obviously you have no issue with that lie. The facts are that George Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer and domestic violence.

On a side note - I love the posters that give out rep points just to call me names. I am not anti-gun just because I don't think people like Zimmerman should be allowed to follow people, confront them and then claim self defense after they kill them.
Let's say who 'confronted' the other is important. Why do you say gz confronted tm instead of the other way around.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:25 AM
 
3,436 posts, read 2,938,810 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Let's say who 'confronted' the other is important. Why do you say gz confronted tm instead of the other way around.

Quote:
Speaking on the phone shortly before he was shot, Martin told the girl that someone was following him and that he was trying to get away, Crump said.
The girl said that, during the phone call, she heard someone ask Martin what he was doing and heard Martin ask why the person was following him, Crump said. The girl then got the impression that there was an altercation in which the earpiece fell out of Martin's ear and the connection went dead, Crump said.
Based on what she heard, the girl believes that Martin was pushed, said Crump, who added that the girl did not hear any gunfire.
Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claim - CNN

Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin. It is obvious on the 911 call that iZmmerman is panting and out of breath and concerned about "*******s who always get away." Zimmerman pursued Martin, not the other way around.

Last edited by Factsplease; 12-06-2012 at 08:35 AM..
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:30 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,403,441 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Factsplease View Post
Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claim - CNN

Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin. It is obvious on the 911 call that immerman is panting and out of breath and concerned about "*******s who always get away." Zimmerman pursued Martin, not the other way around.
A phone call is not evidence, it's hearsay. All the defense has to ask this liar is "What exactly did you see"? When they say "I saw nothing", the defense will dismiss the witness and her testimony will be rendered meaningless.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 09:20 AM
 
5,064 posts, read 5,702,443 times
Reputation: 4768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Factsplease View Post
Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claim - CNN

Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin. It is obvious on the 911 call that iZmmerman is panting and out of breath and concerned about "*******s who always get away." Zimmerman pursued Martin, not the other way around.
It's already been proven that Crump lied about the girl. He kept calling her a "16 year old girl" and "a minor," but documents filed with the court show she was 18 at the time. The documents also show that she wasn't willing to talk to the prosecuter, and they eventually had to send law enforcement to pick her up so they could interview her. Crump sent the defense a heavily edited and mostly unintelligible copy of her interview with him. He refuses to turn over the original. The prosecution says that can't compel him to turn it over, so there is currently a motion filed with the courts to get the original copy of her interview.
The prosecution also orignally withheld her age when they turned over discovery to the defense.
You can read the motion filed on Nov. 30th here:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum..._to_compel.pdf

One of the most interesting parts of that motion are the footnotes, where they carefully outline some of the lies and stonewalling by the Crump & the prosecution. The next hearing is on Dec. 11.

Last edited by brentwoodgirl; 12-06-2012 at 09:51 AM..
 
Old 12-06-2012, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,612,593 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
It's already been proven that Crump lied about the girl. He kept calling her a "16 year old girl" and "a minor," but documents filed with the court show she was 18 at the time. The documents also show that she wasn't willing to talk to the prosecuter, and they eventually had to send law enforcement to pick her up so they could interview her. Crump sent the defense a heavily edited and mostly unintelligible copy of her interview with him. He refuses to turn over the original. The prosecution says that can't compel him to turn it over, so there is currently a motion filed with the courts to get the original copy of her interview.
The prosecution also orignally withheld her age when they turned over discovery to the defense.
You can read the motion filed on Nov. 30th here:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum..._to_compel.pdf

One of the most interesting parts of thaft are the footnotes, where they carefully outline some of the lies and stonewalling by the Crump & the prosecution. The next hearing is on Dec. 11.
All that has been reported here, too, but the Trayvonistas like to pick and choose what they hear. Monkey see, monkey do!

Crump is turning out to be quite a liar. Why am I not surprised? I always cringed when O'Reilly interviewed him and repeatedly called him a 'stand up guy'. Right! Whatever!
 
Old 12-06-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 4,997,441 times
Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
There you go just like I posted. Convicting somebody BEFORE the trial where the facts will be presented. Look in the mirror.... you are playing judge and jury just like you accuse Zimmerman.

Fortunately, we have a trial and jury system.

I'm stating the obvious: It's known from the dispatch tapes that Zimmerman had decided that Trayvon Martin looked as if he were on drugs (which wasn't true), and that he looked suspicious because he was walking slowly and "looking about." Neither of those actions demonstrate criminal activity, particularly when you're discussing a teen who's talking to a friend on the phone during halftime of the NBA game he was watching. Next, Zimmerman chose to ignore the advice the police dispatcher and follow Martin, which put both of their lives in danger; poor judgement, if not a judgement made by someone under the influence of Temazepam and Adderall (and possibly other drugs or alcohol. Finally, Zimmerman was armed, which is neither condoned nor encouraged by any neighborhood watch association...another poor judgement. There may have been burglaries in the community, but to date we've seen no evidence of violent crime. All of this (and much, much more) will be considered at the trial, and when you factor in Zimmerman and his wife lying at the bond hearing, most people would question the character of Zimmerman. And unlike Zimmerman, I'm not prepared to condone or suggest an execution...merely justice.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 10:13 AM
 
1,460 posts, read 2,798,981 times
Reputation: 1105
I don't think the guy is a murderer.

I do think Zimmerman is a bit of an idiot and careless with a firearm. He should have stayed in his truck.

Manslaughter or something like that seems the way to go to me. Let him do some jail time to think about his actions, anything in excess of 5 years is going overboard.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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