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.
Well, IMO, the zim will be acquitted of the murder II charge, but the judge in the case may also decide that the zim committed perjury when zim and spouse said they had not enough $$$ to make the original higher bail set (claimed they didn't have that kind of money). Lying to a court is pretty bad. I can also see gun rights advocates in zims corner, for the best defense.
Zimmerman cannot be tried for perjury during his murder trial. There must be a separate charge and of course a separate trial later. Lying to the Court is not only "bad," it's enormously stupid. I think his lying to the court or deceiving the court can be used in the murder trial to attack his credibility. After all, his entire defense depends upon the jury's perception of his credibility. Zimmerman is the only witness for himself.
Zimmerman already has the gun rights folks in his corner and has had them from day-one. However, during jury selection, I have no doubt that the attorneys are going to look very carefully for anyone biased because of gun rights issues.
I'm not at all convinced that Zimmerman will be found not guilty. It's not clear to me at this point whether or not manslaughter is a lesser included in the charges here. Plus, Zimmerman has already been caught in lies about the evidence many times; and those lies have been captured on video and in television interviews. His story is not consistent. And all those contradictory statements about the evidence and his story he has made publicly WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM at his trial.
Zimmerman cannot be tried for perjury during his murder trial. There must be a separate charge and of course a separate trial later. Lying to the Court is not only "bad," it's enormously stupid. I think his lying to the court or deceiving the court can be used in the murder trial to attack his credibility. After all, his entire defense depends upon the jury's perception of his credibility. Zimmerman is the only witness for himself.
Zimmerman already has the gun rights folks in his corner and has had them from day-one. However, during jury selection, I have no doubt that the attorneys are going to look very carefully for anyone biased because of gun rights issues.
I'm not at all convinced that Zimmerman will be found not guilty. It's not clear to me at this point whether or not manslaughter is a lesser included in the charges here. Plus, Zimmerman has already been caught in lies about the evidence many times; and those lies have been captured on video and in television interviews. His story is not consistent. And all those contradictory statements about the evidence and his story he has made publicly WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM at his trial.
Oh, ok, I just did a google search and found that his old lady (wife) was charged with perjury.
I think he'll be acquitted of all charges, but if he does go free, he won't really be free, word has it all over the web that he's living like a hermit, and I don't think that'll change if set free.
Oh, ok, I just did a google search and found that his old lady (wife) was charged with perjury.
I think he'll be acquitted of all charges, but if he does go free, he won't really be free, word has it all over the web that he's living like a hermit, and I don't think that'll change if set free.
Why do you think he will go free? Is there any specific evidence which you believe goes to his lack of guilt?
And, of course, he will be charged with perjury when the time is right. He doesn't have to be charged immediately. It's up to the State Attorney to decide when to file charges. If he's convicted of the murder charges, two things. He could be charged with perjury, plead guilty, and get a concurrent sentence; saves money on going through a trial. If he's found not guilty, he could be charged with perjury at that point, and either take a plea or go to trial; it would be beyond shocking if he were found not guilty of perjury, but I guess it could happen.
This guy has done so much talking, publicly, online, on TV, in video taped by police, I cannot imagine how he would be acquitted. He has made far too many conflicting/contradictory statements to ever be considered credible by a jury. His entire defense rests on "his credibility." Period. He has filed an affirmative defense of self defense, which means that he is required to put on a defense in this trial (which is different than a normal trial where the defendant is presumed innocent and NOT REQUIRED to put on any defense, and may remain silent). The jury would have to find this man totally credible to find him not guilty.
Also, he's living like a hermit right now because of the restrictions imposed by the conditions of his bail. He is ALLOWED to go very few places, wears an ankle monitor, and must have prior permission to leave home.
And in what confused state have you been when you seen this so many times?
That confused in which I immediately discern glaring fallacies, misconceptions and contradictions in the "logic" of certain people. Take yours. You believe that if the general public forms preliminary conclusions about the guilt of someone accused of a crime, it compromises our legal system. As of yet, you haven't been able to articulate why someone concluding that Zimmerman is guilty of murder prior to adjudication will translate into justice not being served when a a trial is conducted and an actual verdict is reached. Oddly enough, we have several instances we can point to over the past couple decades of public opinion forming overwhelming conclusions about the guilt of a defendant and juries reaching contrary verdicts.
That confused in which I immediately discern glaring fallacies, misconceptions and contradictions in the "logic" of certain people. Take yours. You believe that if the general public forms preliminary conclusions about the guilt of someone accused of a crime, it compromises our legal system. As of yet, you haven't been able to articulate why someone concluding that Zimmerman is guilty of murder prior to adjudication will translate into justice not being served when a a trial is conducted and an actual verdict is reached. Oddly enough, we have several instances we can point to over the past couple decades of public opinion forming overwhelming conclusions about the guilt of a defendant and juries reaching contrary verdicts.
That confused in which I immediately discern glaring fallacies, misconceptions and contradictions in the "logic" of certain people. Take yours. You believe that if the general public forms preliminary conclusions about the guilt of someone accused of a crime, it compromises our legal system. As of yet, you haven't been able to articulate why someone concluding that Zimmerman is guilty of murder prior to adjudication will translate into justice not being served when a a trial is conducted and an actual verdict is reached. Oddly enough, we have several instances we can point to over the past couple decades of public opinion forming overwhelming conclusions about the guilt of a defendant and juries reaching contrary verdicts.
You once again try to put words in my mouth. I never said that an individual who chooses not to follow the rule of law and wait until the final verdict is brought compromises the legal system unless of course they lie about their preconceived perceptions and somehow manage to get on the panel. So your supposition as to my thoughts is, not surprisingly, totally incorrect. And I don't find it odd at all that you would be one of those people. It just fits!
You once again try to put words in my mouth. I never said that an individual who chooses not to follow the rule of law and wait until the final verdict is brought compromises the legal system unless of course they lie about their preconceived perceptions and somehow manage to get on the panel. So your supposition as to my thoughts is, not surprisingly, totally incorrect. And I don't find it odd at all that you would be one of those people. It just fits!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Yes sir! Nothing I like better than an open mind. I'm especially fond of those who cannot grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, there couldn't be matters in extenuation or mitigation, issues of state law or anything else that might have a bearing on the final outcome, could there? But who needs juries when we have people like this one who obviously knows more than any of the rest of us do at this point in time.
So what are you saying? Are you saying there is a chance that people who have formed opinions of guilt are likely to get selected to be on the jury panel? Or that you just don't like for people to form opinions regarding criminal cases prior to trial regardless of whether or not they eventually end up on the jury?
I'm sure you know that during the jury selection process that the judge and attorneys go to great lengths to discover whether or not someone has already formed an opinion about the particular case as well as to be sure that the jury understands the presumption of innocence. Of course, in the Zimmerman case, he has filed an affirmative defense and is therefore required to put on a defense and not simply rely on the presumption of innocence.
You once again try to put words in my mouth. I never said that an individual who chooses not to follow the rule of law and wait until the final verdict is brought compromises the legal system unless of course they lie about their preconceived perceptions and somehow manage to get on the panel. So your supposition as to my thoughts is, not surprisingly, totally incorrect. And I don't find it odd at all that you would be one of those people. It just fits!
Uh, yes you did. You earlier stated that doing such a thing with regards to this case somehow corrupts (my words) the legal process and you implied that there is some obligation upon the public not to voice their conclusions before it has been adjudicated. You even claimed to have said the same when I asked you about Sandusky.
Just to correct you further, placing someone on the jury who has preconceived notions about the case does not necessarily compromise the integrity of the process. As a police officer, you should know that jurors who have formed some preconceived judgments about a case or defendant are still at times picked to serve on juries.
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.
Funny, I'm not confused at all.
