I brought that up when I asked if you meant that Zimmerman should be charged with assault, and you said no, then revealed that this hinged on undermining Zimmerman’s self-defense claim from firing the shot, not the supposed crime of restraining Martin, at which time I asserted that the legality of the restraint didn’t matter to your claim.
But, I shall start searching as time permits.
I don’t now how many times it has to be stated. Zimmerman doesn’t have to testify or say a single word. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn’t in fear for his life. His claim is that he was beaten by Martin and during the beating his gun became visible and a struggle ensued. This has to be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no “liar liar pants on fire” element that the prosecution can use. They need something like a witness or a video that shows this not to be the case.
O’Mara said there was nothing in case law, Florida statues or rules to suggest an immunity hearing had to be conducted before a trial.
Well, I’ve tried pointing out the facts, the laws, and how they fit together in the real world, and that didn’t work either.
Will you change your mind if Zimmerman’s acquitted? If your answer is anything other than an unequivocal “yes”, then it’s clear you have no interest in the rule of law, and I stand by what I said.
Just to nitpick, he does have to say he acted in self defence - if he does not, the state don’t have to address it.
He does not, of course, have to prove anything, or say anything to justify that claim whatsoever. This is, sadly, not the case in many jurisdictions, including where I live, where one does often have to prove one’s innocence in a self defence case. Hopefully laws like Florida’s will spread, though.
not pointed at you but I would ask others to dial it back a notch.
I myself find it frustrating to hear the idea that if a jury doesn’t believe Zimmerman then he’s guilty. There has to be something substantial and not implied. Speaking for myself I would like nothing better than a video showing exactly what happened and I would change my opinion if it showed something like Zimmerman drawing his gun before Martin assaults him. That would change the dynamics of the situation.
If Zimmerman is acquitted, my mind won’t be changed on anything. I think he’s guilty as hell, but I’m not the one who needs to be convinced. The jury has to be, and if they aren’t, oh well. At least Zimmerman will have had to answer for his actions, which is all I’ve wanted from the very beginning (despite your attempts to paint me as some kind of lynch mobber).
I think the prosecution has more than enough information to make the case that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. His defense doesn’t have an easy job ahead of them, which is why I think O’Mara decided not to go with the immunity trial. It is beyond ludicrous to think either side will have it easy. Easy cases don’t make it this far. Zimmerman is no different than any other criminal defendant with his “see, what had had happened…” bullshit story. As it should be, thank goodness.
Seems to me it is you who will have a difficult time if the verdict comes back guilty. To make your arguments, you have bent over backwards to portray the parties in a light that is not only unsupported by evidence, but is not even required to render a fair judgment. And you won’t even concede that Zimmerman’s story is hard to swallow. Every eyebrow-raising part, you’ve got a ready explanation, no matter how far-fetched. All of this speaks to a strong bias that I don’t believe you’d have if the parties were reversed. Or if we were talking about another defendant. When Jerry Sandusky was on trial, were you peeing your pants about his presumed innocence too? Maybe you were, but I didn’t see you in the thread devoted to his trial playing Perry Mason for him. Why is that?
Me, I won’t think the justice system is broken if the verdict comes back not guilty. Instant immunity would have been an injustice to me, so I’m quite satisfied that things are working out the way they should. Don’t know about you, though. I’m not nearly as wound up about this as you seem to be.
If the jury doesn’t believe Zimmerman because the prosecution shows the evidence doesn’t line up with his testimony, will this frustrate you?
Let’s say Zimmerman gets on the stand and admits he lied about looking for a street sign. He got out of his truck to chase after Martin. And he also tells us that Martin didn’t really say “I’m going to kill you”. He admits he lied about that too. But everything else happened, he assures the jury. The punching, the head-slamming. His fear.
Would it still be frustrating for you if the jury decides Zimmerman’s full of shit and that the prosecution’s construction of the facts makes more sense than his? At what point is it reasonable to say, “You know what? If he’s lying about this, then he’s covering up a crime. The only crime he could be possibly covering up is the one the prosecution is charging him with.”
A video of the fight would be the perfect evidence, but you know what? There are a bazillion criminal cases that have been prosecuted on much less evidence, and the juries came back with guilty verdicts. And the defendants were much more charming fellows than George Zimmerman. I don’t know why you think his case is going to be any different. Or why it should be.
(Bolding added)
GZ believed his life was in imminent danger when he used lethal force (shooting TM) to stop TM from beating him/struggling for the firearm.
GZ did NOT use lethal force (jumping on him) to “prevent TM’s exodus”.
Legality matters.
and
is the reason the trial has to go through.
you with the face is already convinced that GZ is guilty and nothing can be said or demonstrated that could possibly change her mind. GZ can claim self defense and it’s up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what GZ says happened didn’t happen or that something else happened. It appears that DD’s testimony will be a main part of the prosecution’s case. Will DD be believeable? Without DD’s testimony, does the prosecution have an open and shut case?
GZ wounds prove that he was beaten. GZ indicated that the beating and the gun grabbing convinced him that his life was in danger. Imminent danger. You believe that GZ’s behavior AFTER the immenent danger had passed is somehow suspicious. I wasn’t aware that there is a standard of “normal” or “legally acceptable” behavior after having sustained head injuries or surviving an imminent danger situation? What do you believe is legally acceptable behavior in such a situation? Shock? Crying? Laughing? Non-stop talking? Silence? Shaking? Gasping for breath? Verifying that your assailant doesn’t have a weapon? Applying first aid? Running away?
:rolleyes:
Look at this picture closely. This was taken the night of the shooting. Does -that- look like the face of someone that was punched in the face? Punched hard enough to knock him down with one punch even though he outweighs the puncher by a good 30-40lbs?
Does that look like a face that was bashed with the can of ice tea? The can of ice tea which, btw, was not only in pristine conditionwhen found, but was found inside Martin’s sweatshirt pocket (and fell out when medics tried to apply first aid)? Perhaps you think Martin started beating on George with the ice tea can, then safely tucked the can away for later consumption after George blew a hole in his chest.
Interesting that in deciding to attack Zimmerman, Martin a) is able to sneak up on George from behind, but then b) ruins any element of surprise by talking, then c) waits for George to turn around before punching him, then d) decides not to use the one thing he was carrying that could have actually helped him in the attack.
Also, note the video walk-through the next day, George is talking and breathing easily and normally, which would be impossible with a broken nose, which is -really really- painful.
GZ’s ‘wounds’ DO NOT prove he was ‘beaten’, nor do they prove that Martin started beating on him first. They merely suggest that George was in some sort of scuffle.
If Zimmerman isn’t going to testify, explain to us how his claims about the fight will be introduced?
You seem to think if GZ takes the 5th, it’s still incumbent on the prosecution to refute every detail of his wacky story. But no story exists unless GZ goes up there and provides the jury with one. The prosecution can present evidence showing that Zimmerman hunted down this kid in contravention with watch protocol, provoked a fight with him, shot the kid unnecessarily despite his terrified shrieks of terror, and then lunged on the kid in manner that shows his hostile state-of-mind throughout the entire fight.
Once the State rests, what exactly is the defense going to present that outweighs that? Especially if GZ doesn’t take the stand?
*To mark what would have been Trayvon’s birthday, community leaders in Sanford are hosting a “Banding Together for Peace” program Tuesday to recognize the need for community healing and solidarity. The event, held in Goldsboro, a historically black part of the city, includes the Sanford Police Department, the NAACP, local city officials and Crump.
On Saturday in Miami, where Trayvon lived, an event called the “I am Trayvon, Day of Remembrance Peace Walk” will feature motivational speakers, entertainers, and free food.
On Sunday, The Trayvon Martin Foundation, set up by the teen’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, will host a fundraising dinner with several guests, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Source :Judge denies request for delay in Zimmerman trial*
I kept thinking this was an ethnic thing. While on the surface that may hold weight, I’ve come to the conclusion this is an American thing
The absurdity. I guess it’s true “…only in America.”
Jeezum crow, you with the face. Don’tcha have any clue? All’s he has to do is make a claim! It’s the prosecution’s job to prove their case. When will it start to sink it?
What the peanut gallery seems to be missing is that this is the reason why the prosecution has an advantage. If the prosecution is the one that has to tap dance, then it will be their show unless Zimmerman dances along with them.
Glad you’re back. You never answered my question:
(Bolding mine)
That is the troubling part. If Zimmerman acted in self defence, he took no actions that he’s required to answer for, and yet you think you have the right to say he should do so, and the right to say you think he’s guilty based on nothing but speculation.
So, please share that information with us, because it’s not in the discovery evidence. The only reason this case has gone anywhere is because of people like you insisting that there be a trial, despite the fact that there doesn’t appear to have been a crime, let alone any proof that one was committed by Zimmerman.
If the verdict comes back guilty based only on the evidence we have now, it will be a miscarriage of justice, and yes, I will have be upset at that. I should point out that an innocent man being convicted is a miscarriage of justice, whilst a guilty man going free isn’t - the latter is a necessary safeguard so that the state can only remove someone’s rights when absolutely certain they’re a criminal.
The evidence shows that Martin struck Zimmerman and knocked him to the floor, and continued to attack him whilst on top of him, and then Zimmerman shot him. The question is, is it possible that, under those circumstances, a reasonable man could have felt fear of death or serious injury? The answer is, yes it’s possible, so Zimmerman is not guilty.
I’m not of the opinion that Zimmerman is a particularly compelling or trustworthy witness (as you say, that’s one reason the immunity hearing may have been waived), but where his story matches the other evidence, I believe it. It does so sufficiently to show he was the victim. As for having an explanation, no matter how eyebrow-raising, that’s how benefit of the doubt works. If an explanation is provided that is possible, and the prosecution can’t show it’s false, then it must be accepted that it may have happened like that. Why? Because strange things do happen in the world, and people - both criminals and victims - do sometimes act in strange ways, and to convict someone merely because their story is unlikely would be a horrific miscarriage of justice.
That’s an absurd view, as to gain immunity he would actively have to prove he didn’t commit the crime, whereas to be found not guilty he doesn’t have to prove anything. If he gains immunity, you can be more certain that he didn’t do it.
Again, you appear not to understand how the law works.
He doesn’t need to make any claims, other than that he acted in self defence.
They cannot provide such evidence as it does not exist. You’ve been repeatedly asked to show such evidence, and been unable to do so. There is, quite literally, no reason outside your fevered imagination to think that Zimmerman hunted anybody, threatened, provoked, or lunged at anybody. Nothing.
Of course, it’s possible that those things happened, but it’s possible many things happened. It’s possible Martin shot himself, and Zimmerman agreed to pretend it was otherwise, but without any evidence we should discount that theory - as we should discount yours.
They will point out the evidence that shows Martin repeatedly approaching Zimmerman, the evidence of injuries that shows Martin repeatedly struck Zimmerman, and the evidence that Zimmerman fired once, so attempting to stop Martin, not kill him. They will also point out that Zimmerman was the good citizen who called the police, and not Martin, when confronted by suspicious behaviour.
They will presumably also question the witnesses who heard the screaming, to show that they could not have known who was screaming, and probably also DeeDee, if it looks like her story will collapse. I don’t know that it will, but there’s a good possibility of it.
So, you will be left with the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin which, in and of itself, is not even a crime.
Didn’t this already come up - is it actually new?
*Defense lawyer wants details of Trayvon Martin lawsuit
Exactly. And O’Mara can’t just go out there and make up stuff. The defense has to use witnesses to support Zimmerman’s claims.
If Zimmerman sits it out, what witnesses can say they saw Martin do all this double backing and ambushing? What witnesses saw Martin slam Zimmerman’s head into the ground? Who saw the boy transform into a smothering gun-grabbing octopus? What witnesses heard Martin threaten to kill Zimmerman? What witnesses have assigned the voice on that tape to Zimmerman rather than a “despondent boy”?
Zimmerman is the only one who can make these claims. The most that any other witnesses can provide is testimony that either is neutral to Zimmerman or is damaging.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
There is no better evidence that he was the attacker than the fact that he’s been charged with murder.
[/quote]
IOW, you have no evidence, and are ignoring the presumption of innocence.
Yes.
Yes. Although it may be the case that Martin knocked him down by tackling him rather than with the punch.
No.
No, wrong again. I have had my nose broken. It is not impossible to breathe or talk normally the day after.
Are you claiming that the medical reports of the doctor examining Zimmerman are wrong, and that Zimmerman didn’t really have a broken nose? We have gone over that already - he did, and this can be proven.
Any of the other established facts you want to deny?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=you with the face]
The defense has to use witnesses to support Zimmerman’s claims.
[/QUOTE]
For the four hundred and forty fifth time, No. They. Fucking. Don’t.
The. Prosecution. Has. To. Prove. All. The. Elements. of. Their. Case. Beyond. A. Reasonable. Doubt.
Your assertions to the contrary are wrong. Incorrect. Not in accordance with reality. False. Not real. Not true.
Also, they are bullshit.
Regards,
Shodan
