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.
in the hell runs from someone that that is following them and than attacks them without provacation?
While we are on the subject of crazy... the provocation is having to run from someone in the first place. Having run to no avail (that means not being able to allude one's pursuers) it is quite natural to turn from fleeing to the the most natural alternative, to turn and fight.
While we are on the subject of crazy... the provocation is having to run from someone in the first place. Having run to no avail (that means not being able to allude one's pursuers) it is quite natural to turn from fleeing to the the most natural alternative, to turn and fight.
I think this is a very reasonable assumption - that, for Trayvon, flight turned into fight.
In her interview with the state, the phone friend and proseutor Bernie had this exchange:
[LEFT]Dee Dee: He would never fight, that’s the problem. BDLR: He was not one of those people? Dee Dee: Hmm-mmm [No]. BDLR: OK… Dee Dee:He would never fight.[/LEFT] BDLR: OK. Thank you very much.
If that statement comes into evidence or she is actually called to testify, would it open the door for the defense to use the fighting video and other fighting stuff they have to attack her credibilty?
I think so maybe. HOWEVER, I don't think the State will ask her those questions (and they are not required to ask them) if she testifies. Also, the State is not required to enter the tape recording or that transcript into evidence. If the State doesn't enter that written or taped statement into evidence, nor ask her questions about Trayvon's character, then the Defense cannot cross examine her about it. The scope of cross is limited to ONLY what was covered in direct examination. Of course, if she just blurted out that information on her own and it was not in answer to a specific question, that may open the door. The State would object strenuously though I think that the answer was non-responsive to the question. That is a valid objection. Seems to me that would cause a legal battle which would be held outside the presence of the jury. I can't tell from the Q & A you posted whether or not that's a sworn statement given to the State, or if it's just an informal interview with the State, or a deposition. A sworn deposition where both parties were present and a court reporter took down verbatim what was said carries a lot more weight. It makes a difference which one of those types of "statements" it is in how it may be used in court. Also, if the State doesn't enter the statement into evidence, I don't think the Defense can either because she is would not at that time be a defense witness. Maybe the Defense could call DeeDee as a hostile witness and get it entered but that seems doubtful to me.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 06-04-2013 at 08:21 AM..
Nope,nope,nope. He killed a black person, not just any but a black kid! No matter what that kid did he shouldn't have been shot. It's fine if he beat G.Z. into a coma, he deserved it for daring to get out of his truck to see where a running hoody clad person was going, maybe to tell the cops since they were roaring over lights and siren to save the day as usual.
We all know the police are there to take care of everything and protect everyone from harm so no one should ever look to protect themselves or property. Let 'em go, it's not worth it.
Worked well on highjacked airlines and oh so many robberies where they shoot the clerk regardless.
It was made very,very clear where we stand when SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect.
Your sarcasm is not very creative or ORIGINAL. Jazz is much, much better at it.
The decision in the case will come down to the evidence and how that evidence is interpreted through Florida's self defense laws.
Hearsay, weak evidence, and unprovable theory about what happened will be discredited by both the defense and the prosecution, and what will remain is the hard evidence.
The evidence:
A 9/11 recording
Bloody contusions to Zimmerman's head and face, consistent with being beaten while lying on his back.
Marks on Martin's hands consistent with beating another person.
No offensive marks on Zimmerman's hands.
Trayvon Martin, deceased from a wound made by a bullet fired from Zimmerman's pistol.
Much detail of the incident can't be proven either way, and therefore unprovable details are functionally irrelevant to the court's decision despite any claims by the prosecution or the defense. Their relative claims on the following will likely differ: who was following who and when, whether or not Zimmerman mentioned or brandished his firearm at any time before the trigger was pulled, what was said by either Zimmerman or Martin to one another at any time before the physical confrontation and killing, and the true motivation of either before and leading up to the incident.
About self defense laws:
In most states, if you are being severely beaten you have the right to defend yourself with the use of deadly force. Zimmerman's firearm was legally owned and carried. The evidence proves that Zimmerman was taking a severe one sided beating by Martin prior to his firing of the pistol. The hard evidence doesn't show much else, and so Zimmerman will walk. Absent evidence that indisputably proves extenuating or contrary circumstances, Americans should be okay with that decision.
This isn't the movies and a citizen of this country, no matter how angry or self-justified, cannot physically attack another without exposing himself to great legal and physical risk. Attacking another human being is a big-boy decision. Think of the worst thing that you can say or do to another human being short of a physical attack. If I were doing it to you or you to me, still neither of us would have a legal justification to physically attack the other. This includes following, name calling, personal space invasion, and whatever else you can think of. Mature, responsible individuals handle such abuses through other avenues, or we learn to get over perceived personal sleights because the potential consequences of a physical altercation, both legal and physical, are too severe. In contrast with television, death often results from physical violence and by a variety of means (accidental and purposeful). Further, it is sometimes legal in execution when justified by self-defense laws. Reality is rife with adult rules and decisions. The fact is that there is no hard evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal before the incident took place. In contrast, Martin made the decision to commit a felony at the time of the shooting when he decided to beat on Zimmerman's face and head. Unless it an be proven that Martin was defending himself from a physical attack by Zimmerman, for which there is no evidence, then the evidence will hold that Martin initiated and sustained the physical aggression until the time of the shooting. No matter what Zimmerman did, short of physically attacking Martin first, there is no legal justification for that. Florida's self defense laws will take over from there.
The only factor that would and should change the court's decision is if Florida's self defense laws are different than what I am assuming them to be.
And, in your opinion, "fighting words" could not be a cause for the incident?
Also I'm unaware of ANYWHERE that the "standard of proof" is "evidence that indisputably proves"...
I think you should research Florida's self defense laws.........I believe there is a duty to retreat if possible.
I think so maybe. HOWEVER, I don't think the State will ask her those questions (and they are not required to ask them) if she testifies. Also, the State is not required to enter the tape recording or that transcript into evidence. If the State doesn't enter that written or taped statement into evidence, nor ask her questions about Trayvon's character, then the Defense cannot cross examine her about it. The scope of cross is limited to ONLY what was covered in direct examination. Of course, if she just blurted out that information on her own and it was not in answer to a specific question, that may open the door. The State would object strenuously though I think that the answer was non-responsive to the question. That is a valid objection. Seems to me that would cause a legal battle which would be held outside the presence of the jury. I can't tell from the Q & A you posted whether or not that's a sworn statement given to the State, or if it's just an informal interview with the State, or a deposition. A sworn deposition where both parties were present and a court reporter took down verbatim what was said carries a lot more weight. It makes a difference which one of those types of "statements" it is in how it may be used in court. Also, if the State doesn't enter the statement into evidence, I don't think the Defense can either because she is would not at that time be a defense witness. Maybe the Defense could call DeeDee as a hostile witness and get it entered but that seems doubtful to me.
It was a sworn statement. The transcript I used is Unofficial. I now have too many pages bookmarked to find anything better. The transcript is on TalkLeft, which took it from JusticeQuest, neither a conservative or rw pro-gz site.
If acquitted Zimmerman will be brought up on federal civil rights laws and there he will lose and do is 12 years.
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.
