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.
None of us - not me, not you - know for sure who provoked who that night. All we have are our own opinions. The only word we have of what happened is that of Zimmerman and I hope you're not delusional enough to think that he is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Hopefully the evidence will be presented clearly and concisely and without question one way or another at the trial.
In the meantime, unless you were there, you really should stop making claims about what did or didn't happen during those two minutes from the time that Zimmerman got off the phone and the time he shot an unarmed teenager because you do not know.
Exactly (as I had previously said) nobody but two people truly know what happened and one is dead so he ain't talking. That leaves G.Z. and what physical evidence there is to either support or deny his story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
The defense is not utilizing the stand your ground statute. They are relying on the standard self-defense law. I agree that those who are armed should be held to a higher standard of human behavior. There should be a penalty for provoking an attack and then shooting someone dead. As far as I see there is not. Given the strong possibility/ probability that Martin initiated the physical attack I see no way the prosecution can get beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion Zimmerman's actions are the equivalent of reckless driving where there is a manslaughter charge if someone is killed as a result of reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
The problem I see with stand your ground laws is they work great when you have the good guy versus the bad guy but most humans are somewhere in between.
Convicting Zimmerman will not stop the problem of armed morons provoking individuals and then killing them.
I don't believe there was any physical provocation by G.Z.. Verbal provocation like calling someone names? Possibly though that does not give you the right to get physical, especially if you're on top of someone pummeling them and/or bouncing their head off the ground.
Again, bad decisions by both. Had this not escalated to violence (the first punch or physical contact) both would be alive.
One thing that would stop armed people from shooting that someone is for that someone to walk away from the provocation unless it's physical.
Basic stuff they teach in grade school right?
I'm assuming tm in a fight video is authentic. If it can't be proven it an't be admitted.
Judges aren't quick to declare mistrials. At some point in the state's case, it is my Opinion that a witness or a document will sufficiently open the door to the fighting, drugs, some texts to impeach or because they have more probative value than prejudicial effect.
When a witness says something on the witness stand which is inadmissible, unless the Court thinks the error can be cured with a special instruction to the jury by the Court, the Court will declare a mistrial. It DOES happen. Now that the Court has ruled certain information may not be used in opening statements, my guess is that the attorneys are cautioning their witnesses to answer ONLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED and not to elaborate. The reason for these pre-trial hearings regarding the admissibility of evidence is specifically so the attorneys know what not to ask and not to bring out before the jury. Yes, attorneys do prep their witnesses (NOT COACH) but prep their witnesses prior to trial. There's a saying, that you NEVER ask a question of a witness to which you don't know the answer. O.J.'s trial comes to mind, and the glove that didn't fit.
Exactly (as I had previously said) nobody but two people truly know what happened and one is dead so he ain't talking. That leaves G.Z. and what physical evidence there is to either support or deny his story.
I don't believe there was any physical provocation by G.Z.. Verbal provocation like calling someone names? Possibly though that does not give you the right to get physical, especially if you're on top of someone pummeling them and/or bouncing their head off the ground.
Again, bad decisions by both. Had this not escalated to violence (the first punch or physical contact) both would be alive.
One thing that would stop armed people from shooting that someone is for that someone to walk away from the provocation unless it's physical.
Basic stuff they teach in grade school right?
"fighting words" just may give you the right to attack.
When a witness says something on the witness stand which is inadmissible, unless the Court thinks the error can be cured with a special instruction to the jury by the Court, the Court will declare a mistrial. It DOES happen. Now that the Court has ruled certain information may not be used in opening statements, my guess is that the attorneys are cautioning their witnesses to answer ONLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED and not to elaborate. The reason for these pre-trial hearings regarding the admissibility of evidence is specifically so the attorneys know what not to ask and not to bring out before the jury. Yes, attorneys do prep their witnesses (NOT COACH) but prep their witnesses prior to trial. There's a saying, that you NEVER ask a question of a witness to which you don't know the answer. O.J.'s trial comes to mind, and the glove that didn't fit.
That's advice that might work pretty well if there wasn't cross-x. cops and expert witnesses are ok usually at staying on track. Regular people, not as reliable.
Exactly (as I had previously said) nobody but two people truly know what happened and one is dead so he ain't talking. That leaves G.Z. and what physical evidence there is to either support or deny his story.
I don't believe there was any physical provocation by G.Z.. Verbal provocation like calling someone names? Possibly though that does not give you the right to get physical, especially if you're on top of someone pummeling them and/or bouncing their head off the ground.
Again, bad decisions by both. Had this not escalated to violence (the first punch or physical contact) both would be alive.
One thing that would stop armed people from shooting that someone is for that someone to walk away from the provocation unless it's physical.
Basic stuff they teach in grade school right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
"fighting words" just may give you the right to attack.
Now I could be way off base, but I have a niggling suspicion that it was GZ who initiated contact, probably with something like, "What the H*** (or worse) do you think you're doing here, boy?", rather than, "Can I help you?"
Now I could be way off base, but I have a niggling suspicion that it was GZ who initiated contact, probably with something like, "What the H*** (or worse) do you think you're doing here, boy?", rather than, "Can I help you?"
Or a couple of well placed N words before and after a sentence. Having a gun makes some people brave, because apparently he could not be a teenage kid almost half his weight.
Now I could be way off base, but I have a niggling suspicion that it was GZ who initiated contact, probably with something like, "What the H*** (or worse) do you think you're doing here, boy?", rather than, "Can I help you?"
I have a suspicion gz had his gun pointed at tm, and probably said something like, 'Do you feel lucky, well do ya, punk,' or maybe the n word instead of punk. Being all mellowed out, tm approached to hug gz and that was that.
btw, a guy was forced to quit his job for using the word *****rdly, accused of raism. I'm pretty sure niggling is ok, but who knows.
Sorry, but your "beliefs" which you recite in your first paragraph are just incorrect. Yes, the Judge does have legal reasons for "disallowing" the things she ruled against in the hearing. And those reasons are based on the law and the Criminal Rules of Evidence.
"Over your head" was not a "smart assed" remark. Based on reading your posts, it seems to me that you really do not understand how trials work......in fact you seem to not understand that there are laws and rules of evidence by which the Judge and attorneys must abide. The JUDGE rules on questions which are governed by the RULES OF EVIDENCE. This is not "crooked." It's the way the system was designed and the way it works, and IMO, it's the best system in the world. So, when I say that it may be over your head, what I'm saying is that you may be unlikely to understand Court rulings throughout the trial in relation to what evidence is presented to the jury and what evidence is not presented.
AGAIN, I think you are likely to be very shocked regarding what evidence is presented, a bit confused about why some things were not permitted, a bit confused by Court rulings, and a bit confused by the Jury Charge which the judge gives the jury before they go out to deliberate. This trial is a legal proceeding, not a neighborhood squabble where anything and EVERYTHING gets thrown out there.
Don't forget that Zimmerman has filed an affirmative defense of self defense. That means he (his legal team) will put on their own witnesses regarding self defense. Zimmerman may actually INSIST on testifying himself, overriding any advice from his lawyers that it might not be a good idea.
When you have been to law school and have received a degree in law, your opinion might count for something. Since you haven't, you are an amateure, and an "armchair attorney" who knows virtually nothing. Your opinion is no better than mine.
My comments are my opinion, yes. But they are based on facts that have been presented (yes, facts) though they may not all be allowed as evidence (which is a travesty). There are cell phone transcripts, security video, and Martin's history of suspensions from school. All these things are important. He was not the "innocent teen boy" that the MSM has been painting him to be.
Zimmerman had reason to be suspicious. No, he did not know who Martin was. But who Martin was is important to his defense, because we learn that Martin was a habitual trouble maker; a young man who loved to pick a fight. This is important in understanding why it was Martin, not Zimmeman, who was the agressor.
Martin was a Mixed Matial Arts expert. He was confident in his ability to fight and win. He was experienced. Even his girlfriend asked, (there is recorded evidence of this) "Why are you always fighting?" (Quote may not be exact from her text message to him).
For Zimmerman to have a fair trial, all this evidence needs to be admitted.
Zimmerman was not the agressor. He was attacked by Martin, who took him down, and was on top of him (hard to be smashing someone's head against concrete if you are not on top of them).
You are ignoring plain facts (you call it "hearsay"). But recorded evidence is what it is. It is not hearsay. A reasonable person can make valid judgements about the evidence (videos, text messages, etc) and "glean" (yes, I said "glean") the truth. That is what a jury does. Unless that evidence is not allowed to be heard by the jury.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman feared for his life. He screamed for help. His only choice (and it was reasonable for him to make this choice) was to get hold of his gun, and use it. Anyone else in the same situation would have done the same. In such a situation, you do not wait for circumstances to change. If you wait, you could be dead. He did what he had to do to save his life. It was the right decision.
If the jury is allowed to see all the evidence, they will make the right judgement. Without knowing all the facts, they cannot determine truth. They will be guessing, and influenced by bias which is in favor of "an innocent teen, needlessly killed by a 'hot head' with a gun, who 'provoked him' and then shot him in cold blood." That is what the MSM wants. That is the story that the MSM has been publishing, and that is the only story that will be heard.
This is shameful. It is disgusting. It is a travesty.
That's advice that might work pretty well if there wasn't cross-x. cops and expert witnesses are ok usually at staying on track. Regular people, not as reliable.
Do you really think attorneys do not prep "regular people" before trials and hearings? Attorneys who have any experience in trial work will talk to every witness they plan to call prior to trial. That's when they explain that the witness is to answer ONLY what is asked, to not elaborate, and to tell the truth. Then they go over the issues with the witness which the witness has knowledge of and will testify about. Experienced investigators who work for attorneys also do the same thing with the witnesses prior to trial.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 06-01-2013 at 06:37 PM..
Reason: added one word
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.
