The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 25
Page 25 of 49 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Yes, tough to unring a bell. And it is never good when one of your witness's answers is struck even if the answer was given on cross examination.

    When I heard the question I thought it was proper because it related to the officer's state of mind during the questioning of the suspect - which is a lot different from simply asking whether one witness believes another witness. But I didn't hear the argument on that issue or the judge's reasoning.

  2.   
  3. #242
    Prosecution rests. In a sane world, populated by logical individuals, all the defense should really need to do at this point is say, "the defense rests." I don't see how anyone could conclude at this point that 2 murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But we've all been surprised in the past...

  4. #243
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    Prosecution rests. In a sane world, populated by logical individuals, all the defense should really need to do at this point is say, "the defense rests." I don't see how anyone could conclude at this point that 2 murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But we've all been surprised in the past...
    The problem is for Zimmerman though, is that even if the jury agrees that Murder 2 isn't proven, they could still go with Manslaughter, and in FL, when the dead person is a minor, there are enhanced sentences. Apparently, Zimmerman could get close to the same amount of time for Manslaughter as Murder 2 with those enhancements. I've heard as much as 30 years. All women on the jury....Trayvon's mom just testified that it was her son screaming....if it were me, I would not want to leave it to chance. Whether my burden or not, I would go for proving I was justified in pulling the trigger, or at least get as close to proving that as I possibly could.

    I listened intently to the arguments for a Judgement of Acquittal by O'Mara yesterday, and this non-attorney found them quite well-organized and on-point, as well as being well-delivered. The judge turned the motion down before O'Mara was back in his seat. I'm not expecting her to emphasize the parts of the law that favor acquittal when she gives her jury instructions. She'll mention them as she is obligated to do, but I'd just about bet that she'll emphasize or spend significantly more time on the law(s) that convict GZ rather than acquit him. She appears to me to be as much against the Zimmerman side of the case as Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton is.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #244
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    A rant... not connected to anything or any posts... just a rant...

    Although I've tried NOT to get caught up in the Zimmerman/Trayvon sensationalistic theater side show called a "trial" I have learned one thing...

    In the courtroom laws mean nothing. What is of utmost importance is how a person's actions.. their past or present actions and/or intentions... and their actions during the event... can be presented in a manner that psychologically manipulates the jury to bring forth the desired result.

    Or... in plain layman's language...

    It's all a game. Nothing but a game. He who can present his agenda/perspective in the most pervasive and manipulative manner to the jury and get the verdict desired... will win the game. Facts do not stand on their own but are merely things to be manipulated.. spun.. and presented in a way that puts the agenda (prosecutor's agenda of a finding of "guilty" or a defense attny's. agenda of a finding of "not guilty") in the most favorable light.

    Folks... it's all theater. It's a dog and pony show. The truth doesn't matter.. all that matters is who can convince the jury that their story is what actually happened. Doesn't matter if the story is BS.. all that matters is to convince the jury.

    And where is the law.. the supposed bottom line.. in all that? Nowhere.. absolutely nowhere... since the law itself is being used to get the verdict desired.

    I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.

  6. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The problem is for Zimmerman though, is that even if the jury agrees that Murder 2 isn't proven, they could still go with Manslaughter, and in FL, when the dead person is a minor, there are enhanced sentences. Apparently, Zimmerman could get close to the same amount of time for Manslaughter as Murder 2 with those enhancements. I've heard as much as 30 years. All women on the jury....Trayvon's mom just testified that it was her son screaming....if it were me, I would not want to leave it to chance. Whether my burden or not, I would go for proving I was justified in pulling the trigger, or at least get as close to proving that as I possibly could.

    I listened intently to the arguments for a Judgement of Acquittal by O'Mara yesterday, and this non-attorney found them quite well-organized and on-point, as well as being well-delivered. The judge turned the motion down before O'Mara was back in his seat. I'm not expecting her to emphasize the parts of the law that favor acquittal when she gives her jury instructions. She'll mention them as she is obligated to do, but I'd just about bet that she'll emphasize or spend significantly more time on the law(s) that convict GZ rather than acquit him. She appears to me to be as much against the Zimmerman side of the case as Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton is.

    Blues
    .
    I agree with your observations. I definitely would not rest, as this is not a debate in a course of logic, and of course guilty of a lesser included offense is still a distinct possibility. I'm not sure exactly how Florida law works on that. To me it's just very clear that 2 murder was a huge overreach. I have not been able to watch all of the proceedings, but my perception of the judge is much the same as yours. I don't think she's technically compromised herself, but my sense is that she has a desired outcome in mind.

  7. #246
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    ....I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.
    Just snipped the above to save space. Otherwise, consider this a reply to the gist of all of it.

    The only thing that would change my bottom line, which is virtually identical to the bottom line above, is if the jury overlooks the partisan hype, emotionalism and manipulations, and follows the law. I guess we wouldn't know that for sure unless at least one agreed to be interviewed after the verdict is read, but I think even short of that happenstance, that it can be assumed that they either understood FL law on the justifiable use of force, remained adherent to the "reasonable man in fear of great bodily injury or death" doctrine, or well-understood the constitutional axiom of reasonable doubt if they come back with a not guilty verdict. At least one of those three things are present in this case (I think all three are), and any one that they determine to be factual, should lead to a not guilty verdict.

    As far as games go, you're right Bikenut, this is indeed a game. I built a pretty decent vocabulary playing Scrabble with my granny, mom and aunt when I was a kid, and I learn a lot from following trials too. I learn about the law, which may or may not serve Zimmerman well, but the more I understand of it for myself, the better armed I am to play the game should it ever be me sitting at the defense table instead of some shlub I don't know from Adam. The fact that it's a game, or even a wholly corrupted, fixed game, isn't reason of itself to avoid exposure to it for me. It's still instructional, still interesting (to me), still kind of exciting in a frustrating sort of way, and there's always the chance that after all the bad calls, unforced errors and cheap shots, the jurors might still make the end result something akin to "justice."

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #247
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    Even the MMA has some rules or a code.
    The code I speak of is something like a bunch of men in a bar or better yet a barber shop. They can be trash talking telling blue jokes etc.
    the moment a kid or a woman walks in the conversation changes. No one has to say anything, No one has to tell anyone to clean it up. They just do it because they are men.
    And yes, women walk into a barber shop all time to get haircuts for their young kids.
    I have been in bars and taverns where the same rules apply and when you have the young asswipe that is MFing this and Fbombing that in front of my wife or other women. I have the right to tell him to knock it off and if he doesn't comply a punch in the nose is totally justified. Any other man in the place just give a grin and didn't see notin.

    That is all I am saying.
    The rules in mma are for the dojo.

    For the most part I agree with your code, until someone initiates a physical attack on me.
    At that point the "rules" are out the window.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  9. #248
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    "He who fights by the rules will be ruled by he who doesn't."

  10. #249
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    "He who fights by the rules will be ruled by he who doesn't."
    Right! There are no rules in a street fight. It's whatever it takes to stay alive and as uninjured as possible. Personally once they're down and don't try to engage me, it's over. But I have seen others try to beat the loser into a grease spot. Thats just not my way.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  11. #250
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A rant... not connected to anything or any posts... just a rant...

    Although I've tried NOT to get caught up in the Zimmerman/Trayvon sensationalistic theater side show called a "trial" I have learned one thing...

    In the courtroom laws mean nothing. What is of utmost importance is how a person's actions.. their past or present actions and/or intentions... and their actions during the event... can be presented in a manner that psychologically manipulates the jury to bring forth the desired result.

    Or... in plain layman's language...

    It's all a game. Nothing but a game. He who can present his agenda/perspective in the most pervasive and manipulative manner to the jury and get the verdict desired... will win the game. Facts do not stand on their own but are merely things to be manipulated.. spun.. and presented in a way that puts the agenda (prosecutor's agenda of a finding of "guilty" or a defense attny's. agenda of a finding of "not guilty") in the most favorable light.

    Folks... it's all theater. It's a dog and pony show. The truth doesn't matter.. all that matters is who can convince the jury that their story is what actually happened. Doesn't matter if the story is BS.. all that matters is to convince the jury.

    And where is the law.. the supposed bottom line.. in all that? Nowhere.. absolutely nowhere... since the law itself is being used to get the verdict desired.

    I personally no longer have any confidence in our system of "innocent until proven guilty" because "innocence" has nothing to do with playing the game of indulging in courtroom drama.... by both prosecutor and defense.
    All they have to do is tell the story right. And pick a jury that they can spin. I'm a lousy juror. I won't bite and I won't render a verdict where I believe I've been duped.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 25 of 49 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast