No.
From your own cite:
There is a huge difference between an individual lawyer expressing his opinion (which is, by the way, a justified one) and the organization itself issuing that opinion. The president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers isn’t speaking for the organization in that quote – he’s speaking in his proper persona.
That he was violent, and used drugs, is established fact. The jury will certainly hear the former, and be left in no doubt of it. The latter is pretty much irrelevant - in fact, as marijuana tends to reduce violence, if anyone was going to introduce it it would be the prosecution.
So, the vilest thing a lawyer can do is use facts to try to show his client is not guilty? I thought that was his job. And, when Zimmerman gets off, O’Mara’s legacy will be secure…
I don’t think she’s any more intractable than Magiver and Steophan. There are a lot of blowhards in this thread, and it seems unfair to pick on just her.
But I’m annoying myself by white-knighting yet again. So I’ll stop.
Really? Strange how both Magiver and I changed our minds when we looked at the evidence, yet neither you nor her have done so at any point, instead clinging to the fully discredited “evil racist guns down cute young boy in cold blood” narrative.
He reads every post I type with the hope that I’ll give him an convenient excuse to pester me. It’s my fault because every so often, when I’m feeling extra charitable, I’ll give him some attention. That just fuels his obsession with me, though. So don’t blame him, monstro. Blame me.
You don’t think I was picking on Magiver as well?
But I had to give him his due: when he makes a factually wrong legal assertion and is shown the cite disproving it, he has the grace to acknowledge the error. In that respect, he differs from ywtf.
Nothing has been fully discredited, Steophan. The trial has yet to begin.
So far your side hasn’t been doing a smash-up job. I would stop salivating self-righteously, if I were you.
By what mechanism? Even if Zimmerman testifies (which will totally be bananas), he didn’t have any prior knowledge of Martin’s personality or habits. So what witness are going to testify that Martin was violent and used drugs?
You really do have a persecution complex, don’t you? I have no real interest in you, merely in correcting the crap you keep posting. Like now. I assume it makes you feel better to assume I have some irrational personal dislike of you, as it frees you from the burden of actually backing up what you say when I show you your errors.
You are not the only person I’ve done that to in this thread, and neither am I the only one correcting you. It’s not personal, and I hope that doesn’t disappoint you too much.
Whatever. I don’t think ywtf is any different, other than you and her just don’t get along at all. You get along with Magiver, so of course he’s going to seem different. It seems really obvious to me, but hey. I’m biased too.
The internet is teeming with idiocy about this case, and O’Mara’s turd seems to be stirring it all up. Which seems to be exactly what he wants to happen.
I just want the whole circus to be over already.
You could have saved all that whining and just ignored me, Steophan. 9 times out 10 that’s what I’ve been doing to you.
I noticed. I presume it’s an easier option that, say, backing up your posts with cites when I show how wrong they are.
I’ve had plenty of dustups with Magiver, and I haven’t hesitated to call him out in this thread – I linked to the most recent occurrence.
A question for those who are convinced of Zimmerman’s guilt - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would you require?
OMG, how many times do various people have to say they don’t care about Zimmerman as a person? If the Prosecution can produce evidence that shows Zimmerman guilty then you will find a chorus of people agreeing with the evidence. The key word is evidence, not how we feel about Zimmerman or Martin.
A video of Zimmerman pulling a gun out as Martin approached would change the dynamics of the trial from both a moral and a legal perspective. If someone heard him say “I’m going to blow your punk ass head off” it would change the dynamics of the trial. But we know he didn’t say that. By the conversation relayed by Dee Dee there was nothing threatening in what Zimmerman said. And I’m basing this on what Dee Dee said because she represents Martin, not Zimmerman. Her testimony is going to put Martin in the most favorable light. I believe Zimmerman’s account is probably more accurate to the language used given Martin’s background. but I’m citing Dee Dee’s version of it which probably left out any colorful language on Martin’s behalf. Based on her testimony we know Martin was away from Zimmerman and next to his house. He KNOWS he was being watched and for the second time he goes back to confront Zimmerman. He’s then asked what he is doing there which is an insulting question and. I’ve been asked this question twice in my life as an adult. The people asking it don’t understand how insulting it is.
EVERYTHING backs up what Zimmerman said. It’s not like it’s a mishmash of contradictions and reinforcements. It doesn’t prove he couldn’t have committed a crime but there is nothing to suggest he did. It’s morally repugnant to base a conviction on anything other than the evidence at hand. If the evidence at hand doesn’t prove him false without reasonable doubt then he is innocent.
If a credible witness came forward and said that Martin had prior awareness of Zimmerman and had pledged to kick his ass or some other unlawful act, I would see this as evidence that could potentially shift my opinion.
If there was video footage of Martin ambushing Zimmerman, punching him, and slamming his head into the concrete like Zimmerman claimed happened, my opinion would definitely change.
If an expert with an unassailable record listened to the 911 audio and with greater than 70% confidence, asserted that they matched Martin’s voice to someone issuing murderous threats rather than pleas for mercy, I would also concede there is room for reasonable doubt.
In the absence of any this, I don’t see where there is room for doubt.
yes, Bricker has many times. And for the record, I looked up the relevant Florida law on my own before reading your post. I kinda expected you to do that given your ability to research case law. I don’t know enough legal terms to do it quickly but I have taken enough law classes to muddle through the search.
And you still haven’t addressed what I said about Zimmerman leaving his truck with the gun. He didn’t confront Martin then and showed restraint when asked not to follow him. If he had stayed in his truck and Martin continued around the corner I see no reason to believe Martin would not have escalated it at his truck.
I’m not looking for a confrontation, I want to know the basis of your opinion. Some people might benefit from the exchange including me.
So, you are saying that, unless there’s positive proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman, then you will consider him guilty of murder?
There is, of course, room for doubt unless you can prove that the things you list didn’t happen - the question is, who gets the benefit of the doubt. Why are you giving it to Martin?
I will say that, in my opinion, we know beyond reasonable doubt that Martin inflicted the wounds on Zimmerman. There’s no-one else who could have done it.
great, see how evidence works?
the evidence shows Martin was by his house. that’s what he told Dee Dee. Time passes and Martin starts the confrontation, again this comes from Dee Dee. The location of his house corresponds with the direction that Zimmerman says Martin came from. How are you able to ignore this evidence? You’re saying both Zimmerman AND Martin are lying.
Yes, in the absence of evidence that shows Zimmerman attacked Martin or murderous threats made and the evidence that shows Martin attacked Zimmerman there is no contradiction to Zimmerman’s account.
Well no, space aliens could have done it and beamed up just before Martin jumped on. But as it stands, witnesses only saw 2 people so we’re left with Martin as the only person responsible for attacking Zimmerman.