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 believe the BURDEN was on Zimmerman to stop this situation from escalating. IMO, Trayvon's actions were reasonable for the circumstances, because I believe that Zimmerman followed Martin, caught up with him, and verbally started the altercation, and I believe that to be true based on the totality of the evidence presented so far. I do not take Zimmerman's word at face value because I can see the many inconsistencies in the statements he gave and the videos presented during the trial. His contradictions of his own statements, IMO, have been siginificant. IMO, Zimmerman was driven by obsession to "prove something" to himself and others by following Martin. Maybe obsessions can be considered mental defects or mental disorders.
That's your error. That hasn't been proven by the state. So you need to reconsider YOUR BELIEFS.
Again like I said the inconsistencies, and contradictions could not have been severe enough to discredit him in court( the only place that matters) or the state would have brought them up, no?
You are really smart, it's a shame that you consistently bring your "feelings" into a discussion of facts.
What is in your mind doesn't matter.. What is in the mind of the jury does... They are going to set him free.. I'll be very surprised at this point if they don't.
And if anybody doubts that, go back and watch the Hannity interview where Hannity asks him if he was aware of SYG and Zimmerman gets that big grin on his face, looks Hannity right in the eye, and says, "no, sir."
Hannity acted doubtful and asked him again and again Zimmerman looked him in the eye and said, "no."
No hesitation, no blinking or averting his eyes, just a big, stupid grin on his face while he lied through his teeth.
Pathological is right.
How anyone in their right mind can believe his version of the events of that night is beyond me.
Why should he feel remorse??
WHY!?
I'm sorry, remorse is what you're supposed to feel if you are OJ Simpson...or Mark Melendez...or Jodi Arias or whoever.
You know...when you actually murder somebody over passion..when you are unable to get a grip mentally and let your insecurities or your weak will get the best of you.
When somebody is on TOP OF YOU and punching your face into the concrete...you DON'T feel remorse for blowing them away....because you would do it again 10 times out of 10.
All of what you are saying here is true, however, a jury is made of of non legal professionals.. They are the ones who will ultimately decide this case, ( and I will also concede that there is no telling what a jury will do) but the defense has done a masterful job in creating doubt and the prosecution has done a woefully poor job in their efforts to prosecute this case... As it stands now, the defense seems to have the upper hand and if the defense rested now, I believe Zimmerman would be a free man. If they are able to further damage the prosecutions case, (which is highly likely) then there is little doubt of the outcome. Zimmerman would be aquitted.
Juries don't decide cases "blindly." They are given oral instructions by the JUDGE prior to going out to deliberate, and then, in Florida, a WRITTEN COPY of the oral instructions is given to the Jury to refer to in the jury room during their deliberations.
The Jury Charge will contain definitions (legal) of things such as beyond a reasonable doubt, the laws as charged which includes the elements which the State must prove, (Not to the exclusion of EVERY DOUBT but beyond a reasonable doubt), as well as explanations regarding how the jury is to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the instruction to consider the TOTALITY of the evidence, and many other things. Many Juries do indeed follow the Jury Instructions given them regarding how they are to decide on a verdict. Also, in this Jury Charge, seems to me that absolutely there will be included the laws regarding manslaughter, a lesser included offense, the elements of that law, and the jury can find him guilty of that lesser included charge if they think he committed that crime.
IMO, from watching the trial, I completely disagree with you in terms of the defense having destroyed the State's case in cross examination. I have admitted that I think it looks like the State did NOT prepare their witnesses, didn't work well together as a legal team, and gave the defense more openings than they should have. However, that does not negate the evidence I saw and hear that the State presented which has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman lies, he lies about important things, and I cannot take his word of self defense at face value. In other words, I don't believe his claims, and I certainly think this man has every good reason in the world to lie about this incident in order to save his hide. If I don't believe Zimmerman, and I see him as NOT credible, as a juror, I'm not going to believe his story 100%...but MAYBE 50%. I think Zimmerman has left out or lied about all the accounts from the real story which would have negated his "self defense" claim, like who started the altercation. That gives me reasonable doubt that he was in fear for his life because he had a gun and knew Martin did not.
Maybe lacking an ounce of common sense would be a better description. Neither are a crime.
The preponderance of the evidence, without believing a single word George has said, shows Zimmerman on his back, losing a fight with a weapon within his opponent's reach. I would be in fear of my life in such a situation.
Yes, I would have never gotten myself into the pickle Z did.
Sad, I have to quote myself to explain to someone with poor reading comprehension skills what I said.
Notice I said the preponderance of the evidence favors the defense. What does this mean? What it means is not only has the prosecution failed to prove George beyond a reasonable doubt (I think I first learned about the reasonable doubt standard watching Perry Mason when I was six) it has not even be able to reach a much lower standard.
I believe that in order to determine this if it ever comes down to this very question, both individuals in the altercation would have to have their backgrounds gone through with a fine toothed comb to figure it out.
I think that's why this point hasn't been but touched upon. They can't go too deep as there may be problems for both sides.
Well that is really obvious is it not? The state can't bring into court anything in Zim's past simply because that would open Pandora's box, and really make the case a rout. SA's learn early on all about picking a fight you can't win. Well most do that is.
I am very familiar with the instructions that are given to the jury... I also know these instructions have little effect on what goes on in the mind of someone on a jury.. Once again.. Juries are not legal professionals..
Juries don't decide cases "blindly." They are given oral instructions by the JUDGE prior to going out to deliberate, and then, in Florida, a WRITTEN COPY of the oral instructions is given to the Jury to refer to in the jury room during their deliberations.
The Jury Charge will contain definitions (legal) of things such as beyond a reasonable doubt, the laws as charged which includes the elements which the State must prove, (Not to the exclusion of EVERY DOUBT but beyond a reasonable doubt), as well as explanations regarding how the jury is to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the instruction to consider the TOTALITY of the evidence, and many other things. Many Juries do indeed follow the Jury Instructions given them regarding how they are to decide on a verdict. Also, in this Jury Charge, seems to me that absolutely there will be included the laws regarding manslaughter, a lesser included offense, the elements of that law, and the jury can find him guilty of that lesser included charge if they think he committed that crime.
IMO, from watching the trial, I completely disagree with you in terms of the defense having destroyed the State's case in cross examination. I have admitted that I think it looks like the State did NOT prepare their witnesses, didn't work well together as a legal team, and gave the defense more openings than they should have. However, that does not negate the evidence I saw and hear that the State presented which has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman lies, he lies about important things, and I cannot take his word of self defense at face value. In other words, I don't believe his claims, and I certainly think this man has every good reason in the world to lie about this incident in order to save his hide. If I don't believe Zimmerman, and I see him as NOT credible, as a juror, I'm not going to believe his story 100%...but MAYBE 50%. I think Zimmerman has left out or lied about all the accounts from the real story which would have negated his "self defense" claim, like who started the altercation. That gives me reasonable doubt that he was in fear for his life because he had a gun and knew Martin did not.
All true. But what is cool about being on a jury is that you can completely IGNORE the judges instructions.
I have only been on two. One Civil the other a Murder case. As soon as we were locked away to decide on both cases the judges instructions went out the window and, common sense applied. And best of all the judge can't do a whole lot about it.
All true. But what is cool about being on a jury is that you can completely IGNORE the judges instructions.
I have only been on two. One Civil the other a Murder case. As soon as we were locked away to decide on both cases the judges instructions went out the window and, common sense applied. And best of all the judge can't do a whole lot about it.
Interesting. Care to share the verdicts reached?
That is exactly why I feel the jury will convict, no matter what the final sentence....common sense, morals and the discrepancies in George's story.
Last edited by JanND; 07-06-2013 at 10:48 AM..
Reason: edit text
I'm sorry, remorse is what you're supposed to feel if you are OJ Simpson...or Mark Melendez...or Jodi Arias or whoever.
You know...when you actually murder somebody over passion..when you are unable to get a grip mentally and let your insecurities or your weak will get the best of you.
When somebody is on TOP OF YOU and punching your face into the concrete...you DON'T feel remorse for blowing them away....because you would do it again 10 times out of 10.
Uhhh, because you killed a human being? Even IF it were in self defense, you still killed a human being, and most folks would at least wish that it had not happened, and they had not had to kill another human being. ESPECIALLY now that Zimmerman knows that Martin was not a stranger intending to burglarize homes there, knowing now that he was visiting with his father, that he didn't have a gun or weapon, that he was just walking home, and that his death could have been AVOIDED if you had not made such a HUGE ERROR IN JUDGMENT, that this person is now dead because you made that HUGE ERROR IN JUDGMENT, I think MOST people would feel remorse at some level.
I think in an instance like this, people who would not feel remorse is a strong indication of sociopathy or psychopathy, both of which involve a lack of conscience and ability to empathize.
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.
