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.
Your whole paragraph has NOTHING to do with anything I said.
This is a discussion board, not a court room. This is nothing but speculation. So speculation is fair on both sides. Period.
All that talk and you don't even grasp what I'm saying.
I'm well aware of how trials are conducted, thank you.
You questioned the fact that Zimmerman's character should be considered in the trial. That's pretty specific.
This is a thread on a discussion board about a criminal case which will be tried IN A COURTROOM in a COURT OF LAW IN FLORIDA in just two weeks. The discussion should at least have some relationship to what can and cannot be brought out to the jury in that trial, otherwise, what's the point? Just talking to "hear" our heads roar?
Your comments in your posts do not give any indication that you are "aware" of how trials are conducted, and they certainly don't demonstrated that you are "well aware" of how trials are conducted.
he a stranger, at night... was in the process of killing the man, this is what is known...not any opinions about how or idea's that have to do with what you think, would be representative of intent...intent has nothing to do with it, he was in the process of killing him in an aggressive unstoppable manner, the one being killed has a right to defend. Those are the facts. Case closed.
Again, no need for a trial at all! The CD law team has figured it all out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Let's look at the history of violene. In 2005, gz hit his fiane and they were both granted restraining orders. The same year he pushed away an underover agent's arms at a bar. The judge at his bond hearing said this about that act of 'violence--- "And so we're familiar with those particular situations. I won't say it's standard, but it's a run-of-the-mill type run-in with the alcohol and beverage agents at The Library, I believe it was. They're fairly common, so I'm familiar with those, even though it's in another jurisdiction."
Both incidents 7 years before he killed tm. Nothing to be proud of, but a fairly meager 'history of violence.'
tm, true, had no criminal record. So what. We know he committed criminal acts. His school, to keep the arrest stats down, chose not to contact the cops. His mother booted him out. He boasted about bloodying another kid in a fight. Suspended for drugs, yet brought drugs to Sanford. Who knows what else is in the records that haven't yet been made public. All within a year of death night.
It won't help the state to open the door to character, who had the behavior pattern to be the aggressor, things like that.
Brought drugs to Sanford? What are you taking about? Did the cops find drugs in the apt. where he was staying? Hadn't heard that.
No, "that" is NOT what is "known." "That" is what Zimmerman asserts. It is a disputed fact, therefore, a trial is scheduled and evidence will be presented and ultimately the jury is going to determine whether or not Martin was in the "process of killing the man." Juries make the final decisions regarding disputed facts based on the evidence which comes from witnesses on the witness stand and documentary evidence which is entered in the form of physical exhibits.
This case is most definitely NOT closed. LMAO. The trial is scheduled to start JUNE 10, 2013, exactly 14 days from now.
The media created the charges themselves. Its the media that should be on trial, thats the villain.
well hopefully everything involved gets the att it deserves in this ridiculous outcome.
So you think jury trials in criminal cases are "ridiculous"? Appears that you may also think that it's ridiculous to have career attorneys (elected State Attorneys in Florida) review investigative evidence and then file charges against someone who they think, based on that evidence, broke the law.
The media created the charges themselves. Its the media that should be on trial, thats the villain.
Ummmm, sorry, WRONG. The "media" does not have the specific authority to legally charge anyone with a crime in this country.
The State Attorney filed charges BASED ON THE LAWS which their investigation indicated Zimmerman broke, not on any BS printed by the "media." Have you ever seen an official charging document or an indictment? No? Didn't think so.
We get it that you personally don't like that Zimmerman was charged with a crime. But until you are elected as a State Attorney in Florida, you don't get to make those calls. Also it would be extremely naive to think that State Attorneys are not monitored and just have free reign to do ANYTHING they want to do just "because." They have to meet requirements of the law. Do you think State Attorneys are above judges in our courts down here?
Anything can be argued because everything is relative. Problem with this one, is the facts which are relative to the outcome are what they are. Plus, I did some thinking and if this happened to one of my brothers who I'm very close to, I would go down there and insist they allow him to not be disgraced in memory, with this ridiculous attempt to nail someone for defending themselves. I pretty much know my brother is NOT a killer, but as I explained earlier a person cannot do this to a stranger at night in the dark, nose hit and slamming the head...its as simple as that and expect to walk away whatever the end result, in all possible circumstance. Life is not a movie, with doing things like this...its how people die. The human body is NOT designed to survive these mortal attacks.
This ^^^ is far, far too simplistic of an argument regarding this case. And, NO, not "anything" can be argued in a trial; there are rules of evidence and procedure which MUST BE FOLLOWED.
Again, you need to do a little research and learn WHY we have trials..........you need to learn what "facts in dispute" means in legal terms. There is going to be a trial regarding this incident BECAUSE there are disputed "facts." That means one side (legal side) says an incident happened one way and the other side (legal side) says an incident happened in a different way. Our system of justice requires the State to prove the facts they assert to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries listen to evidence presented, both direct and cross examination, and their job is to determine which version of the "facts" they find to be most believable. You really need to learn a few of these basics in order to sound somewhat credible when you are discussing criminal cases.
The information about Zimmerman's head being pounded onto the sidewalk is a DISPUTED FACT in this case. All we have is Zimmerman's word, so that information will be "tested" in a court of law (the trial). Just because a defendant says an incident happened in a certain way does not mean that's the truth. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head have not yet been established as LIFE-THREATENING. If Martin was pounding his head the way Zimmerman claims, Zimmerman would have had to be transported to an E.R. that night to be tested for a concussion, or for stitches, or to be observed for a period of time to determine that there was no brain damage, etc., etc., etc. That didn't happen. Additionally, you do not yet know what evidence the State may have regarding the severity of the head injuries, which would go to Zimmerman's veracity.....in other words, how "truthful" is Zimmerman regarding this issue.
Ummmm, sorry, WRONG. The "media" does not have the specific authority to legally charge anyone with a crime in this country.
The State Attorney filed charges BASED ON THE LAWS which their investigation indicated Zimmerman broke, not on any BS printed by the "media." Have you ever seen an official charging document or an indictment? No? Didn't think so.
We get it that you personally don't like that Zimmerman was charged with a crime. But until you are elected as a State Attorney in Florida, you don't get to make those calls. Also it would be extremely naive to think that State Attorneys are not monitored and just have free reign to do ANYTHING they want to do just "because." They have to meet requirements of the law. Do you think State Attorneys are above judges in our courts down here?
All you want to do is fuel this thing with garble. The facts are what they are. And to be honest they should pic a jury from another country...we all know what would happen...so what does that tell..?
Again, no need for a trial at all! The CD law team has figured it all out.
Brought drugs to Sanford? What are you taking about? Did the cops find drugs in the apt. where he was staying? Hadn't heard that.
Also:
GZ knew none of this when he killed Martin.
GZ is the one on trial, not Martin.
Amazing that so many people seem to think Martin is the one who will be on trial, and that the character issue regarding Zimmerman is about "who would start the fight" as opposed to Zimmerman's veracity..........about his truthfulness. After all, Zimmerman's defense is based entirely on what he said happened, on his word alone. And most of us already know that Zimmerman was complicit in his wife lying to the Court regarding how much money they had in their bank account. Plus Zimmerman has made many inconsistent statements about this event. The issue is can Zimmerman be believed when he makes such self-serving statements about what happened when the results of his actions could send him to prison and he would also have a lifelong record as a felon.
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.
Juries make the final decisions regarding disputed facts based on the evidence which comes from witnesses on the witness stand and documentary evidence which is entered in the form of physical exhibits.
