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.
I've never had someone on top of be bashing my head into the ground so I can't say what that feels like but if George Zimmerman claims that he was in fear for his life I believe him unless someone can prove otherwise.
So you believe everything anybody tells you, you take everything at face value?
In a trial, there are TWO sides. Each side will have witnesses and they usually counter what the other side says. That's what juries hear and that is the information they use to come to a verdict. In fact, the Judge in the jury instructions prior to the jury going out to deliberate will address the credibility of the witnesses and how the jury is to determine the credibility of each of the witnesses. If Zimmerman testifies, that will include him.
In this case, Zimmerman's credibility (believability) has been very damaged because of the contradictory stories he has told to various people interviewing him, his statements to law enforcement, and then there is the lying about the money in his bank account. What may seem to be lies by George may very possibily have an important impact on whether or not the jury would believe George if he testified. That's also why the injuries he sustained and their severity will most likely be addressed by experts.
That's irrelevant. He didn't have to stay in his car.
Following Martin doesn't excuse Martin's criminal attack on Zimmerman.
However, Martin's criminal attack on mean does excuse Zimmerman shooting the hoodlum.
NO, Zimmerman not staying in his car is NOT IRRELEVANT. This is something which will come up at the trial. You have to look at the circumstances AS A WHOLE. The circumstances in this case will NOT be fragmented in the trial.
NO, Zimmerman not staying in his car is NOT IRRELEVANT. This is something which will come up at the trial. You have to look at the circumstances AS A WHOLE. The circumstances in this case will NOT be fragmented in the trial.
You're wrong.
No I am not.
But I guess the next time a woman gets attacked and kills her attacker we should look at why she was out of the kitchen in the first place since that could have prevented the whole situation.
Stupid...
All that will matter in the end is whether or not Zimmerman at the time of the shooting was in reasonable fear of his life.
If Martin WAS on top if him bashing his head that's all she wrote.
You may want to investigate self defense laws and outcomes...
Anything else will be misdirection by prosecutors that care about conviction rates and not justice. Shrug...
That's irrelevant. He didn't have to stay in his car.
Following Martin doesn't excuse Martin's criminal attack on Zimmerman.
However, Martin's criminal attack on mean does excuse Zimmerman shooting the hoodlum.
You do NOT know who took the first punch or who made the first physical contact between the two of them.
Why do you assume that Trayvon was doing anything but defending himself against some nut who he didn't know from Adam and who may very well have grabbed Trayvon by the arm, trying to detain him for some reason that Trayvon couldn't understand?
Or what might have happened - or NOT happened - if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, done what a neighborhood watch person is supposed to do (observe), and waited for the police to come and question a young black male about what he was doing with an Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of skittles in his pocket.
Most likely, tm would have walked back to the house, still be alive, and none of us would know their names. Since gz didn't stay in his truck, what crime, if any, did he commit.
You do NOT know who took the first punch or who made the first physical contact between the two of them.
Why do you assume that Trayvon was doing anything but defending himself against some nut who he didn't know from Adam and who may very well have grabbed Trayvon by the arm, trying to detain him for some reason that Trayvon couldn't understand?
Unless, of course, you were there?
Clearly you don't know the law.
It doesn't matter who instigated.
If Martin was on top of Z, bashing his head in and Z was screaming and crying and trying to get out, which the one guy witness said immediately after the fact then it is self defense.
If I start whooping your tail and then attempt to disengage and get away and THEN you kill me it is not self defense.
The law and initial witness testimony is available online for reading. if you'd kindly do so before spouting off at the mouth you'd not appear so silly eh?
But I guess the next time a woman gets attacked and kills her attacker we should look at why she was out of the kitchen in the first place since that could have prevented the whole situation.
Stupid...
All that will matter in the end is whether or not Zimmerman at the time of the shooting was in reasonable fear of his life.
If Martin WAS on top if him bashing his head that's all she wrote.
You may want to investigate self defense laws and outcomes...
Anything else will be misdirection by prosecutors that care about conviction rates and not justice. Shrug...
Same as it ever was...
Interesting that Zimmerman's lawyer does not agree with you.
Do you really think that in this case, in which Zimmerman's attorney has filed an affirmative defense, is that Zimmerman simply has to SAY that he feared for his life?
How many years have you practiced law in the state of Florida?
If you've ever practiced law at all, too bad for your clients.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 02-03-2013 at 10:41 AM..
If Martin was on top of Z, bashing his head in and Z was screaming and crying and trying to get out, which the one guy witness said immediately after the fact then it is self defense.
If I start whooping your tail and then attempt to disengage and get away and THEN you kill me it is not self defense.
The law and initial witness testimony is available online for reading. if you'd kindly do so before spouting off at the mouth you'd not appear so silly eh?
I'd suggest that you are probably the person who doesn't know the law. There's a reason why court personnel and judges and lawyers always say, when a non-lawyer represents him/herself in court, they have a fool for a client.
If the law were so easy any lay person could read it and interpret it, as well as be familiar with the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE, then there'd be no need for law schools, bar exams, and experience practicing law. You may be able to read the self defense law and think you understand what has to be presented in court, but if you don't know anything about rules of criminal procedure and rules of evidence, then you are basically clueless.
Do you even know the difference between an immunity hearing and an affirmative defense of self defense? You seem to think all of these things are so simple. And you are simply WRONG. BTW, all that talk of what the law means is just cheap bravado.
Oh, yeah. WHERE is all that INITIAL TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES? Have you read all the depositions which have been taken in this case, of every witness? Or are you referring to the initial questioning of witnesses in the complex, which were reported in the media? At least give us a link to ALL THE INITIAL TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES so we can see what you're talking about. You do realize that attys take depositions in cases as late as the day before the trial, or the week before the trial, depending upon the circumstances. And you are suggesting that ALL THE TESTIMONY IS ALREADY OUT THERE FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ? lol SWORN TESTIMONY?
There's a reason why court personnel and judges and lawyers always say, when a non-lawyer represents him/herself, they have a fool for a client.
If the law were so easy any lay person could read it and interpret it, as well as be familiar with the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE, then there's be no need for law schools, bar exams, and experience practicing law. You may be able to read the self defense law and think you understand what has to be presented in court, but if you don't know anything about rules of criminal procedure and rules of evidence, then you are basically clueless.
Do you even know the difference between an immunity hearing and an affirmative defense of self defense? You seem to think all of these things are so simple. And you are simply WRONG. BTW, all that talk of what the law means is just cheap bravado.
They say this not because knowing the law is complicated.
They say this because they won't forgive errors in procedural matters just because you appear pro se. Plus lawyers have contacts and resources that a defendant usually doesn't.
However, many defendants have successfully defended themselves pro se.
You are the one simply wrong.
But you are to entrenched now to admit it. Shrug...
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.
