ywtf: what is your prediction for the trial’s outcome?
Um… huh??
A witness to what??
I know there have been some dramatic improvisations to the factual record here, but this one’s in the running for champion of the thread.
It makes as much sense as the idea that Zimmerman murdered Martin - which is to say, not a great deal. There’s little evidence or suggestion of motive for either.
“Hmm… I think someone just saw me casing the neighborhood, and he’s now following me around in his truck. I should beat him to death with my bare hands- that won’t arouse any suspicion.”
In what world does that make sense?
Not to pile on, but this seems highly speculative. Zimmerman hadn’t witnessed any crime of Martin’s, and Martin wasn’t a fugitive.
While we can’t know Martin’s motives, the likeliest one to me is that he was offended at being followed, and intended to given Zimmerman a beating in retaliation. Of course, Zimmerman had no way of knowing if the beating would lead to his death, and he had a reasonable fear that it would, given his head wounds.
Please produce evidence that Martin ran away from Zimmerman. You have claimed that you don’t believe Zimmerman, and that he is not credible. Therefore, if you were going to be consistent, you would not take Zimmerman’s word that Martin ran away. So prove that Martin ran away.
I thought you were going to present inarguable facts rather than stupid crap. If you are going to present inarguable facts, you will need proof that people who are being beaten never stop screaming after the beating stops.
Since you cannot produce such proof, this must not be inarguable fact, but stupid crap instead.
Yes, you are correct - it’s beyond argument that no one was trying to kill Zimmerman while the EMTs were examining him. That doesn’t prove that Martin wasn’t trying to kill him shortly before that, however - Martin was dead at that point. So this is stupid crap as well.
Also stupid crap, not inarguable fact. Zimmerman was under no moral or legal obligation to wait until Martin inflicted life-threatening injuries before defending himself.
Given the unfortunate nature of many of your posts to this thread, I went and checked the parts of Zimmerman’s account that you are mentioning. As is not unexpected, you are seriously mischaracterizing what Zimmerman said. Zimmerman did not tell the witness not to call the cops. He said that calling the cops was unnecessary. This is not a contradiction - Zimmerman knew the cops were on their way.
Again, not a contradiction - unless you have evidence that the witness was telling the truth and that Zimmerman denied having done so. You cannot contradict something you didn’t say.
Again, entirely false, as has been pointed out ad nauseum.
Gosh, it almost looks like Martin was engaged in some kind of physical struggle with someone, and that someone was underneath him. Exactly as Zimmerman has said from the beginning, and as witnesses relate.
If that were the case, then what you claimed earlier about the alignment of Martin’s clothing can’t be true. They weren’t standing up - Zimmerman was underneath Martin.
Fortunately for our understanding, your assertion that the trajectory does not fit Zimmerman’s account is quite straightforwardly false - it fits entirely.
No, actually it reveals his understanding of the basic legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. If there is any reasonable doubt about any of the elements of the prosecution’s case, or if it turns out that they are lying about the nature and circumstances, then Zimmerman must be acquitted. That’s how it works in the US, even if a white guy shoots a black kid.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a rather strange post:
This is followed by a whole bunch of items that contain language such as: “Unlikely”, “suggests” and “could explain” - which strongly implies that you believe these points are arguable.
In short, you’re doing a decent job of casting doubt on the proposition that Zimmerman could not possibly be guilty. If that were the legal standard to be applied at the upcoming trial, there’d be good reason to anticipate a conviction.
I think the problem is not that you with the face is saying that points are inarguable when they’re not; it’s more that she is claiming that they are facts when they are not.
Regards,
Shodan
:smack: I can’t believe I wasted time responding to all those points when this was so obvious.
Apparently, prosecution has lied to the judge.
Wonder what sanctions the judge will impose on them.
The proper thing to do would be to turn over any fines to the defense.
If one accepts Zimmerman at his word, Trayvon was walking on people’s lawns and looking into windows. Unless Zimmerman was paranoid, a stranger who was walking on the sidewalk shouldn’t have been given much note. Or standing under the “mail thing.” (The mail thing is just a kisk, with no entry, just mailboxes in the walls, with a gutter overhead, there are better places to find to get out of the rain)
That’s not a crime, though. Zimmerman hadn’t witnessed anything that could implicate Martin in a criminal act.
That link says “Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence” (evidence that was required to be disclosed to the defense).
Assuming this is true, is it something that the defense can use during the trial? Could they call the prosecutor as a witness and get him/her to admit a failure to follow the law?
Would they?
The first sentence for each point is an inarguable fact. The subsequent sentences explain the signifance of these facts with respect to Zimmerman’s guilt.
Sorry if you couldn’t figure out that yourself, but it’s pretty obvious.
I think it’s worth noting that this was brought up by someone who left the prosecuting team over differences of opinion. The trial hasn’t started and already one of the prosecuting attorneys is on administrative leave.
No, they’re not facts and that has been pointed out to you line by line. You keep making legal pronouncements that are not true and ignore the evidence at hand.
That question should go to Bricker.
But the fun part is that the prosecutor lied to the judge when he claimed that they released all the contents of the phone to the defense, at the time when the whistleblower is saying that the prosecution knew of the pictures/texts that were not released. That’s lying to the court. What will the judge do?
I don’t know.
If Zimmerman doesn’t take the stand (which I consider likely) I don’t think the defense will be able to challenge the prosecution’s case to any sufficient degree.
If he takes the stand and manages (by a miracle) to do okay, then his chances of walking are higher. How much higher depends on the jury, and I don’t know how many nuts and yahoos will be represented among them.
If he takes the stand and bombs, then I predict his chances are roughly equal to the scenario where he takes the 5th, if not worse. But again, this depends on whether any of Sanford’s “best and brightest” make the jury cut.
There is evidence that has yet to see the light of day. Namely, Zimmerman’s cellphone data and call logs. Since the behavior of both the defense and prosecution suggests this evidence is important enough to keep under wraps until trial, I can’t help but think Zimmerman’s case will be damaged by this info.
The defense is saying it only has $5000 left in the bank. This, despite O’Mara and West saying they’ve not been paid a cent. They don’t have enough dough to hire experts or pay for transcripts, so they say. So right now it sounds like the defense counsel is holding itself together with rubber bands and dried spit. They blew their wad on dead-end motions, they threw all of Martin’s text messages into the press to see what stuck (nothing), and now they are sitting on the curb with their hands outstretched like panhandlers. And in the meantime, Zimmerman is quickly becoming the StayPuff Marshmallow Man.
So I’m optimistic that justice will be served.
I’m sure you’ll be putting some money towards his defence fund. After all, you want justice to be served, and that can’t happen if he doesn’t get top quality defence, right?