Thanks Shodan for saving me from having to write something like that on my phone.
You have no evidence that he did. Only Zimmerman’s claim, which is not corroborated by anything else.
You have no evidence that this happened.
You have no evidence that he did. Only Zimmerman’s claim, which is not corroborated by anything else.
There is no evidence that Martin laid a finger on him. Only Zimmerman’s unsubstantiated claims.
There is no evidence that demonstrates Zimmerman had a broken nose. Only Zimmerman’s unsubstantiated claims.
There is no point in responding to anything else you posted, Shodan. It’s just more of the same, and I get a headache reading it.
Zimmerman’s entire case hinges upon unsubstantiated claims. The sooner you realize that, the better for everyone.
Even if this were true (which it isn’t), it wouldn’t matter. He doesn’t need evidence of his innocence. However, the fact that Zimmerman and Martin encountered each other after they’d lost sight of each other, when we know Zimmerman didn’t go towards him, is proof (not just evidence, proof) that Martin came back to Zimmerman.
False. There is a witness who saw Martin attacking Zimmerman, there are multiple witnesses who heard screaming from at least one of the only two people who were fighting in that area at the time, and we have injuries to both parties consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman, then Zimmerman shooting him. That’s significant evidence.
Again, utterly false. There’s the medical report from the scene, and the photos you’ve seen in this very thread.
For that matter, even if the only evidence was Zimmerman’s unsubstantiated claim, that is still evidence, so your claim that there is no evidence would be false even in that situation. Zimmerman’s statements are, and his testimony will be, some of the most important evidence in this case.
By more of the same, I assume you mean more evidence that points to the truth of Zimmerman’s claims? I’ve just listed plenty of it, and Shodan listed more.
That’s also untrue. It rests on unproven claims, but that’s to be expected. He is neither expected nor required to prove his innocence. The fact that you refer to it as his case rather than the prosecution’s shows you don’t understand this rather fundamental distinction.
It seems to me that you don’t understand what evidence is, what proof is, and what a criminal trial actually entails. How that can be if you’ve actually read this thread whilst posting to it, I’ve no idea, but the only other explanation is that you do know what they are, but think they shouldn’t apply in this case.
True. Of course, there’s evidence that SOMEONE laid a relatively contentious set of fingers on him, and a thumb too. But there’s no evidence (apart from Zimmerman’s unsubstantiated claim) that it was Martin who did so.
False. There’s the medical report. You might not believe it’s strong evidence, but it’s certainly not “no evidence.”
I already posted a cite that showed the defense intends to fold immunity into the trial. Do you think that Zimmerman would benefit from a simply stand-your-ground legal proceeding? He needs to be vindicated in court.
A jury MUST convict based on evidence. It’s not an option for them or the judge will simply set the verdict aside.
It’s a pretty simple case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There isn’t a mark on him and no witness saw anything that contradicts Zimmerman’s statement. The jury can’t simply not believe him. they have to have evidence and it has to be beyond doubt.
No there’s not. His injuries could have been caused by anything. A fall, a brush against a sharp object, anything. Human hands are not the only things in the universe that can inflict injuries.
His injuries represent evidence that he was injured by someone or something. That’s it.
The medical report does not demonstrate he had a broken nose, hence the “likely” qualifier that the PA used.
No, this is false. There is evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman, namely, the scrape on Martin’s knuckles which corresponds to the injuries to Zimmerman’s face.
We also have an eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Regards,
Shodan
How would one “fold immunity into the trial”, pray tell? The concept makes no sense because it presumes they are going to actually try his case twice. Once in front of the judge and then essentially the same thing in front of the jury. Do you understand how much a waste of resources this represents? Nevermind it being completely unhelpful to Zimmerman.
O’Mara would still need to file a motion for an immunity hearing to have it “folded into the trial”, so how about you call me when he actually files such a motion. I’m about 99% certain such a motion will never see the light of day because its so asinine, but don’t let my skepticism stop your dreams.
More dreams.
Of course. Presumably you have evidence for which of those things caused the injuries? If not, you can’t refute Zimmerman’s claim Martin did it, and he’s not guilty. The jury must, in the absence of such evidence, find that way. That’s not a matter for debate. He does not have to prove his innocence. What do you find so hard to grasp about that?
You are, of course, ignoring the witnesses that say it was Martin who did it, the injuries to Martin consistent with doing so, and the fact that the injuries occurred around the time that we know Martin chose to go out of his way to confront Zimmerman. That doesn’t amount to proof, but it’s good evidence that the prosecution would have to contradict, whilst also proving beyond reasonable doubt that Martin did not put Zimmerman in a state of fear such that he could use lethal force to defend himself. Simply discrediting the defence evidence on its own will not suffice for that.
That’s true. What evidence do you have that proves he didn’t have a broken nose? Remember, again, all the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. If you wish to claim he didn’t suffer serious injury, you need hard evidence, not doubts.
Oh, and as for this, it’s not a dream that the jury may not convict without evidence, it’s a cornerstone if the justice system.
What sadly does seem to be a dream is that people like you will stop trying to get innocent people punished because you dislike them or their actions.
You still don’t understand that the prosecution is not required to refute anything. They have evidence that Zimmerman provoked the fight that led to Martin’s death and they have evidence that he wasn’t in imminent danger from Martin and that Zimmerman failed to retreat when he could have. Zimmerman’s self-serving claims don’t matter if they are uncorroborated (which they are). The evidence that implicates Zimmerman is stuff that he has admitted to doing, and everything else they have on him simply strengthens what amounts to his confession. Their case likely will be very simple. They won’t have to refute anything.
The state does not have disprove any and every allegation that Zimmerman makes. Zimmerman doesn’t even have to take the stand, for Pete’s sake. To the prosecution, Zimmerman’s theory for what happened is irrelevant. Please wrap your mind around the implications of this.
The only witness who comes close is “John”, who now admits he didn’t see much of nothing. He will not be of help to the defense because his recantation indicates unreliability and he only saw a glimpse of the fight anyway.
What other witnesses help the defense?
Sigh.
They have to show that any scenario that the defence comes up with in which Zimmerman is not guilty is probably false. In practice, they will have to refute Zimmerman’s claims. He is, don’t forget, a witness here.
You still don’t understand “beyond reasonable doubt”. The prosecution must show that the only scenarios one could reasonably believe are those in which Zimmerman is guilty. If the defence come up with a theory that’s plausible, however unlikely, where Zimmerman us innocent, if the prosecution don’t refute it he walks. This is part of the necessary protection of defendants, who are, in case you’ve forgotten, presumed innocent.
I get that you don’t like the fact that people you dislike can’t be locked up on a whim. I find it incredibly disturbing that you feel that way, and I utterly fail to grasp how, after participating in this thread for a year, you still don’t understand how it works.
So do you think he’s going to take the stand like all the other witnesses?
I sure hope so.
They can do that by proving their theory.They don’t even have to cross-examine Zimmerman if they don’t want to. Which means refuting his claims is a purely optional exercise.
When the defense attempts to argue that Martin was the one who launched an unprovoked attack against Zimmerman, how many witnesses do you think they will be about to cough up to present this claim? I only count one. Zimmerman. “John” didn’t see what led up to the fight so he will be of no use to them.
In contrast, when the State argues that Zimmerman provoked an attack against Martin, they can call up Serino, Singleton, the NEN dispatcher, analysts who reviewed the clubhouse videos (which possibly show Zimmerman pursuing the kid in his truck), phone records, and DeeDee.
There’s no contest as to who has the strongest case.
I understand it very well. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is for a jury to decide. It is not an objective, absolute quantity that you can determine via the internet. Zimmerman can be convicted on anything ranging from the minimum evidence needed to press charges against him on up to entire kitchen sink the prosecution decides to throw at him. It is not up to you to decide the threshold for “beyond reasonable doubt”.
"…in other news this evening, an elderly woman was beaten to death as she watched television in her home. Sanford police say what looks like a petty burglary gone wrong, Janeen Myers, 84, was watching the Price is Right with the sound off, when a young African American male que picture of Trayvon on screen broke through the screen door on her back porch. After robbing the upstairs jewelery chest containing sentimental and expensive valuables, he attempted to leave through the front door believing the house empty, only to find Mrs. Myers standing there with a phone in her hand and the television flashing.
Police believe the young man panicked and struck the woman several times until she stopped resisting. In the scuffle he dropped his stash and disappeared outside into the rain.
Hours later Mr. Martin returned to the same apartment complex after visiting a local 7-11. He was spotted by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman whom called the police about a suspicious persons in the gated are.
Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to try and identify/intercept Mr. Martin however lost sight of him while speaking to the dispatch operator. Minutes after making the report, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin were heard to be in a physical altercation which ended in a gunshot. Mr. Martin took one bullet to the chest before dying moments later. Sanford deputies found a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea nearby, apparently dropped my Mr. Martin during the fight.
report trails off
Would Zimmerman then be the hero, for ‘avenging’ this elderly woman?; Or would he still be some racist simpleton looking to impose his malice upon young unsuspecting black males?
If he’s called, yes. I rather hope it doesn’t reach that stage, and the charges are thrown out before then.
What do you mean by “provoked an attack against him”? Either you mean Zimmerman attacked Martin, for which there is no evidence, or you mean he provoked Martin into attacking, which could possibly be true, but is not criminal. There is nothing in law that gives you the right to attack another person.
If you mean that you don’t believe Martin attacked Zimmerman, but was acting in self defence, then say so, but be prepared to provide evidence for it, and be aware that none of the things you list are evidence that Zimmerman started the confrontation.
Well, no, but even if the prosecution did have the strongest case (which they don’t), that doesn’t make Zimmerman guilty. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, not on balance of probabilities.
It’s for the jury to decide whether the case reaches the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, not what that standard is. The judge will instruct them on that, as on all other matters of law.
The defendant can only be convicted if it reaches that standard, and not on any lower one, so you’re wrong that they can convict on minimal evidence.
Why would you even want them to convict on flimsy evidence? That’s what I really don’t get about you and others here. You seem to be glorying in the possibility of sending someone who’s guikt you cannot possibly know to prison.
I’m going to place DD’s written statement, which was submitted before the oral depo.
May 19
I
all the evidence shows Zimmerman acting in a controlled and rational manner and he was where he said he was and he was brutally attacked by Martin for an extended period of time. There is no evidence that Zimmerman struck Martin.
The trial starts at physical contact. This is where the law was broken. Nothing from the conversation as stated by both DD indicates Zimmerman engaged Martin. The indication is that Martin engaged Zimmerman. All the evidence from witnesses to the 911 call to Zimmerman’s condition indicate a person getting beaten and that person would be Zimmerman.
All he has to do is testify that there were 2 people there. The remaining evidence shows who got beaten and who would ask for help in this situation. To think otherwise is a complete disregard for logic and so far away from reasonable doubt that a judge would through out the verdict. This isn’t a religious event where a preacher gets to talk people into belief. A prosecutor has to have solid evidence of something to convict. A Prosecutor can’t even suggest something without evidence to back it up. There has to be evidence to make a conjecture. If they introduce what DD said then the defense has the advantage of cross examination.
All of them including DD. She stated earlier that she heard someone say “get off” a little bit. Martin wouldn’t be whispering this if he was attacked. The most logical explanation for that indicates she heard someone away from the microphone. Someone who was being attacked. The only person who shows signs of being attacked is Zimmerman. Her testimony fits with Zimmerman’s testimony that Martin was all over him after punching him.
[quote=“hmarvin, post:9459, topic:619125”]
I’m going to place DD’s written statement, which was submitted before the oral depo.
May 19
I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the corner store. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining so hard. He started walking than noticed someone was following him. Than he decided to find a shortcut, cause the man wouldn’t follow him again. Than he looked back and saw the man following him again. The man started getting closer. Than Trevon turned around and said"why are you following me?" Than I heard him fall, the phone hung up. I called back and no response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Than I found out the tragic story.
Thank youI doubt there are too many ways to interprete DD’s statement. She has Trayvon going to the store, instead of coming from the store, he walks through another complex, not the one he was staying at, when Z begins to follow him. At this point, she appears to be in the dark about the actual events that occurred.