Cool. “Gotcha” jurisprudence. What a great idea.
Claiming that Trayvon Martin was trying to pull away just before the shot is just plain asinine. There isn't one shred of evidence for it, and you look foolish by changing your claims during the trial.
The prosecution is flailing. It’s amazing to watch. I mean right now, on rebuttal, they tried to impeach a witness (very clumsily and unsuccessfully). As the talking heads correctly pointed out, rebuttal is not for impeachment. Rebuttal is to introduce contrary evidence.
So the state admits that the only evidence it has is that their ridiculous medical examiner stated that Martin may have been “leaning back” when he was shot? That doesn’t show anything and it certainly isn’t reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable juror.
What does it take for a directed verdict to be granted? Does the prosecution have to actually just vomit all over the podium and then rest?
I’m not aware of anyone saying GZ “refused” to shield his head with any part of his body. Theoretical-speaking, you can protect your head by redirecting your attackers fists from their intended path.
You could absorb the strikes with your hands or arms but that would probably leave marks or brusing.
By haphazardly flailing your hands/arms/elbows in front of your face you could/might/maybe cause your opponent to miss your head completely. That would leave no marks on your head. Sleeved forearm to sleeved forearm contact could redirect the fists path causing your opponent to miss your head and not leave any marks on either persons forearms. Elbow to forearm contact could redirect a strike.
Squirming, twisting, or shrimping (?) could move your head away from the path of your opponenets fists.
idk but I think it’s possible, for a relatively short period of time, that an amateur can avoid being struck in the head by someone who had some street fighting experience.
IF that gym is now offering the “Zimmerman Plan” - that would contradict (or atleast cast doubt) on whether or not the earlier testimoney as to Zimmerman being an ‘softie’ or an ‘innefective fighter’, etc - in doubt.
The arrogance, really. If you all feel this way, email Debra Nelson (seminole@flcourts18.org) to let her know that the George Zimmerman isn’t “legally guilty” and that she could go ahead and shut the trial down. The prosecution went on for over an hour on both evidence and circumstantial evidence for over an hour, and, much to your chagrin, there was no acquittal. Further, there’s not one single post here that refutes what the prosecution said, just a bunch of belly-aching how Zimmerman is a victim of the justice system. In the mean time, I strongly urge you (and others) to let Debra Nelson how you feel, I’m certain she an use all of your expertise and guidance on this issue. Email her, she is probably on pins-and-needles waiting and eager to hear from you.
I have an issue with believing George Zimmerman because he’s a liar. He’s lied, misremembered, attempted to con the Court from bail, and, of course, he molested his cousin. I’m not even going to touch other things, but that’s enough for me to think he’s just saying what’s convenient. I apologize my opinion is different from yours. I apologize that when faced with the word of a liar and the word a dead child, you choose the word of a liar because it’s convenient. Finally, I apologize my interpretation of the trial differs from yours. I sincerely hope you will ask the moderators to rename this thread, maybe it could be entitled, “State of Florida v George Zimmerman trial thread - only for supporters of Z! No one else allowed!!!111oneone.”
This thread is reminding me of those Israel threads in Great Debates where the supporters are so numerous, so shrill, so frothy at the mouth that they (purposefully) drown out dissenting opinions, followed by text-based high-fives and “U r awesome” amongst themselves. It’s nauseating to see a bunch of men act this way, but, unfortunately, not at all surprising. I’m glad you see that George Zimmerman is morally culpable, for what’s it’s worth, you’re light-years ahead of the peanut gallery on that one. Good for you (I’m serious).
- Honesty
What is the “Zimmerman Plan”? GZ lost a lot of weight while he attended this gym. That would certainly make it a popular plan for people looking to lose weight.
Fully agreed. Get him up there, call him on everything, but GZ’s testimony’s already there from the tapes.
Here’s a question. It needs a bit of background, though.
In 2004, the State of Florida charged one Mark Fowler with murder based on his shooting of Samuel Dunbar, who was unarmed. Fowler claimed it was self-defense.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defense moved for a judgement of acquittal. They told Judge Morris Silberman that the prosecution had failed to make a legally sufficient case, since the prosecution had not disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge Silberman denied the motion. The defense put on their case, and renewed their motion at the end of their witnesses. Judge Silberman again denied it. The jury convicted Fowler, and Judge Silberman entered a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder.
On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed the record and found that no reasonable jury could have convicted Fowler, because the state did not disprove self-defense. They vacated his conviction and ordered him released.
Now the question: was Fowler legally guilty?
(I don’t know if Fowler ever molested his cousin.)
Prosecution got slapped for calling the gym guy. He is dismissed. Prosecution also decided not to call its second witness. Now, in desperation, they are trying to introduce evidence about Zimmerman’s 8 years-ago arrest. That will most probably be disallowed (unless Nelson goes for broke and loses all shame).
Closing arguments tomorrow.
BTW - defense indicated that they will object to including manslaughter in jury instructions.
No idea - the point is only that it calls into question the honesty of the witness OR (as the prosecution said they were trying to do) call into the question the testimoney of the other expert as to his skills -
They (the prosecution) should have brought this up during initial -
Here’s the page -
http://www.kogym.com/zimmerman.htm
Smart move - they think the prosecution has not met M2 - they feel the jury will want Zimmerman ‘punished’ for something - so if they can’t meet M2, better not to give the jury a fallback.
(I think thats worded right - its ‘all in’ for the defense)
also just realized - all that arguing to get the MJ use in - and then not used - was it a distraction tactic by the defense?
Actually, I was very puzzled about this thread being in IMHO - when we discussed having a “data only” Zimmerman Trial thread, I suggested putting it in GQ to keep it focused and fact-based around what was happening in the trial.
This thread got into opinions, arguments and tangents (not to mention “hey, watch me make fun of people!” ugliness) pretty much immediately.What a shock.
I still think that if there are people who just want to… I guess it’s to discuss/learn about actual events of the trial itself, without venturing into the facts and evidence that the trial is about, then there should be a GQ thread: Zimmerman Trial Updates:Hold The Opinions - Factual reporting of the trial activities only, no discussion that isn’t exclusively about the trial itself, no discussion of content except as it is about the way that content is being handled and presented in the trial itself.
Seems simple enough. Then just merge this with the old ZimArtin thread.
They may as well try, but since they argued at the trial’s midpoint that the jury should hear manslaughter but not second-degree murder, they’re almost estopped from now arguing that the evidence does not constitute manslaughter.
Could the state call Zimmerman as a rebuttal? Of would it be pointless, since he could just plead the 5th?
Prosecution cannot call defendant as a witness. Period.
Absolutely not. They can’t even force him to take the stand and claim the Fifth, since that would highlight his refusal to testify. They can’t mention his refusal to testify during argument. Nothing.