I think this thread did a good job of exploring the legal realities of the Zimmerman legal case. We’re now at a point where Stoid’s opinions on the crime are just being repeated over and over, which isn’t really an interesting topic of discussion. We know how the case in reality turned out, we know how the law actually works on issues like provocation and etc. There is nothing of worth Stoid is bringing to the table by just repeating herself over and over so I really see no reason to keep engaging her on those issues.
Well, it wasn’t the Tuesday before. And it wasn’t after Martin was shot.
True, its clear Z has some memory issues. Convenient ones, but still. Like he is unfamiliar with the neighborhood he “patrols” in his capacity as neighborhood watch captain. Had to get out of his truck and go looking for a street sign. Which, by sheer coincidence, he walked in the precisely the same direction as Martin had walked. But not following Martin! No, no, just a coincidence!
Phone records posted previously on this thread (or another) indicate that there was, at most, one minute between the time the altercation began and the shooting of Martin. But Z swears he was being smothered, but can’t quite remember when? Seriously?
I think some of the posters to this thread are bending every effort to keep the issue strictly and exclusively to legal issues, wherein a technical victory may be possible, regardless of what violence is done to reason and clear thought.
The whole point of the thread as laid out by the OP is basically “we get there are lots of valid opinions about the righteousness of what happened, but don’t pollute your legal arguments with that.” Namely, the people who have defended the law do so because we separate the legal reality from our personal emotions on the case. The people like Stoid refuse to accept that the legal system can validly produce a result that is different from what they feel should have happened.
So yes, this thread is about the legal issues–specifically because many individuals have insisted incorrectly that the law is something other than it is based on the non-legal aspects of the case.
And the opposite absurdity is claiming that a legal verdict of acquittal changes the truth, and that I am thereby obliged to change my opinion accordingly.
So, in the case of Schrodinger V The Cat, if a jury of twelve decides the cat is dead, then the matter is resolved.
It depends on what your opinion is. If your opinion is, “a terrible thing happened and its a tragedy” I wouldn’t expect your opinion to change.
If your opinion was “the law was fucked up” that’s also not one I would expect to change.
If you opinion was “the case was decided based on erroneous understanding of the law” then your opinion is in direct conflict with facts, and must yield or be rendered an absurdity.
Piffle. I’ve already stated that were I sworn to jury duty in this case, I might very well feel compelled to vote for acquital, against my better judgement. The only other option being jury nullification, an option I hold out only in the most extreme cases.
Your jury may not make that inference, as it is based on too many other inferences. You need to base your finding on the evidence, not other inferences, so you may either find that it was Zimmerman screaming, or that it is impossible to tell. The evidence does not support a finding that it was Martin (again, fact, not opinion).
You clearly admit to stacking inferences - you infer from the nature of the screams that it was unmitigated terror (a valid inference), then from that you further infer that it was Martin - and you can’t stack inferences like that, ignoring that your second inference isn’t supported by the first. The evidence, rather than your fantasies, clearly shows that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and suggests it was him doing the attacking, and provides no reason to suspect he was in terror. You have literally no basis for inferring that it was Martin.
Ahem.
Martin’s mother testified that she recognized her son’s voice. The jury can choose to believe that, and disbelieve the people that testified they recognized the screams as Zimmerman’s. That’s exactly the kind of fact-finding that a jury can do.
Stoid claimed that the mother’s testimony was not what she based her decision on. I was specifically questioning her inference that it must have been Martin from the circumstances.
I think the problem here may be more a matter of lack of clear communication.
If I say, “As a juror, I credited Treyvon’s mother’s testimony over others who testified differently,” then I think we’d all agree that that’s within the proper exercise of my power as a juror. Yes?
Speaking less precisely, I can imagine a juror saying, “It was Treyvon screaming, for sure.” This would be the inference drawn from accepting Treyvon’s mother’s testimony and discarding the testimony of those who testified differently.
So I assume that Stoid is not saying, “As a matter of undeniable fact and mathematical certainty, it was Treyvon screaming.” Are you, Stoid?
I assume instead that she’s saying, “As a result of my review of the evidence, much like a juror would, I accept and credit Treyvon’s mother’s testimony and therefore am convinced it was Treyvon screaming.”
Yes?
No, because you don’t have a scenario. As brazil84 mentions, you have not been able to lay out a scenario apart from “whatever Zimmerman says is wrong”.
Again, that isn’t true, and it is a demonstration of why it is so difficult to take you seriously. You complain repeatedly about how the other side won’t admit that things might be different, and then use your silly underlining giant-font bolding garbage to insist that only you are right. And you are not right - as has been pointed out again and again, there are several pieces of evidence that corroborate Zimmerman’s account that Martin attacked first, that Martin was getting much the better of the fight, and that Zimmerman almost certainly did not have his gun in hand when Martin attacked.
Regards,
Shodan
Stoid has repeatedly claimed that it must have been Martin screaming, based on the circumstantial evidence. Her reasoning for that is rather circular, she both assumes Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin earlier than he claimed, which is why Martin was screaming, and when called on that assumption claims that Martin’s screams show he was in fear for his life :smack: She made this claim before the identification of the screamer as Martin by his family, and continues to make it despite the fact that those claims have been discredited.
The circumstantial evidence points to (but does not prove) Zimmerman being the screamer, as the only certain identification of the two fighters has Zimmerman at the bottom, and he has injuries consistent with a beating, whereas Martin has none.
You are giving her far too much credit for rational thinking here.
It’s a gamble, but it’s not pointless. How else is new case law generated?
If you catch a case like this to prosecute, and there is no State case law that favors you, you take a gamble and make your best argument. If you can cite cases from other States, why not?
I agree that it’s a long shot, but what else would you do?
I wish you’d go outside your comfort zone and play devil’s advocate once in a while. A good debater should be able to make a compelling argument for the other side.
What would you do if you were the prosecutor who caught the case, quit your job?
If I was a State’s Attorney? I’d not prosecute a case in which I’d have to utilize unproven theories of law to prevail at trial. I’d recognize my case work is funded by my constituents out of their taxes, and that I have an interest to both represent their interests in terms of getting criminals locked up and also in being a good financial steward of their money. I would be remiss in my duties to prosecute every potential case, regardless of my professional legal opinion about whether they are winners or losers. Additionally, any prosecutor’s office I’ve ever heard of has cases up to the ceiling. It isn’t a non-zero sum game, I have to choose how to allocate the time of my staff attorneys wisely, and shouldn’t devote significant time to cases in which the public side will not prevail.
The people are not trained attorneys, but if I was a State Attorney I’d basically have been elected to act in their stead, and it’d be against your duty to act in a manner not to their benefit. Prosecuting unwinnable cases is such a dereliction.
Do you think de la Rionda and Guy had a choice as to whether the case was going forward or not?
I guess only fictional attorneys get passionate about trying to win “unwinnable” cases.
Yes, another annoying argument I have seen online is the “reverse reasonable doubt” argument: We don’t know for sure what happened but Zimmerman’s story doesn’t completely add up. Therefore he must be guilty.
Basically the same argument was made in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
I agree, but at the same time Stoid is wandering away from the point she was responding to:
The alleged fact that Zimmerman followed or attempted to follow Martin against police instructions is irrelevant to his legal guilt or innocence.
I would make as persuasive an argument as i could to my bosses that the charge of second degree murder was absolutely not winnable, and charging it would reduce our credibility with the jury. I would refile an information charging manslaughter.
At trial, I would have made the elements of manslaughter without using the Zimmerman tapes. That was a mistake: it let Zimmerman “testify” without being on the stand. I’d force him to get on the stand to articulate how afraid he was, and then I’d have a chance to go after him on cross.
I am not a lawyer. I had a LOT of experience with lawyers, thankfully not criminal lawyers, and in spite of all the hatred of lawyers out there, I found a lot of them pretty ethical. Lawyerly kind of ethics, but still - a consistent system of ethics that they wouldn’t break. So yes, an ethical prosecutor would have to resign.
And then go do personal injury cases and rake in the fat bucks.