39
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 07:11 pm
@BillW,
That happened to us too! We almost had a hung jury after our three month trial. It was the second longest trial in Santa Clara County in California.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 08:07 pm
@gungasnake,
Stupid jerk.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 11:05 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Stupid jerk.
U like SMART jerks better, right ?
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 11:28 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
Zimmerman's lies are all self serving, therefore, one can conclude that al of Zimmerman's statements that are self serving are lies or at a minimum can not be depended on.

"Cannot be depended on" is right. But if you can't depend on Zimmerman's Fox-Noise interview for the truth about the confrontation, that doesn't mean we know that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. It means we don't know the truth about the confrontation. And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 12:52 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
the jury must presume innocence and acquit.
unless the state can prove otherwise that is the law sir. they did not even come close...deliberations should take no more than a hour.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:19 am

Major (media inspired) riots now predicted, e.g.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15918-if-zimmerman-walks-media-inspired-riots-anticipated


Part of the problem appears to be in the numbers...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3039918/posts

Quote:

When discussing this matter, people inevitably bring up Missouri’s 1999 ballot referendum on Right-To-Carry, which was narrowly defeated (with a dismal 30% voter turnout, I might add.) The fact is that the measure passed in almost every county in the state. The defeat came from the fact that two very large urban precincts in St. Louis and Kansas City were over 90% opposed. At the time, I thought this was vote fraud (and to be honest, I still think that was a factor). Ninety percent? You can’t get ninety percent agreement on anything.

A black businessman (who was one of the handful of St. Louis city residents who voted for the referendum) and I were discussing the recent passage of RTC. I brought up the referendum results, and said I could not understand why blacks had been so uniformly against the measure. The proposal was a "shall issue" one, where if you satisfied the requirements (training, fingerprints, no criminal record, no mental illness, etc.) you couldn’t be denied the permit just because the sheriff didn’t like the idea of people besides the police having guns. The businessman stared at me.

"I thought you were good at math," he said. I allowed as to how I felt that I was. "Then you must never have taken Statistics and Probability." I told him I had done this also, and that it had been one of the most rewarding math classes I had ever taken (and incidentally was taught by Amherst’s professor Denton, who is black.) "Then you must be cowed enough by political correctness to never think of applying statistics and probability to anything involving race." Finally I admitted that this last accusation might be true.

"Then I am going to ask you two true-or-false questions. One: Do blacks in the city of St. Louis have large extended families?" I answered in the affirmative. "Two: Is it true that in St. Louis, over 40% of the black males between the ages of 17 and 25 have criminal records?" I told him that was also true, unfortunately.

"So here is the important question: What are the chances of a black person of voting age in St. Louis having at least one relative with a criminal record? Assume we define ‘relative’ broadly, to include the young men who father the children of our female relatives, whether married to them or not." He sat there waiting for my answer.

"Are we talking fathers, stepfathers, uncles, brothers, stepbrothers, male cousins, sons, stepsons, nephews, mothers’ boyfriends, aunts' boyfriends, sisters’ boyfriends, daughters’ boyfriends, stepdaughters’ boyfriends, female cousins’ boyfriends, nieces’ boyfriends, as well as anyone actually married to a female relative?" I asked. He nodded. "Then I’d say there's nearly 100% probability that at least one relative would have a criminal record." He smiled at me like a teacher who has just gotten the right answer from one of his slower students.

"So," I said, "I'm to believe that the black sentiment in St. Louis was ‘I wish young Tyrone would stop robbing people, but I don’t want one of the people he robs to shoot him dead.’ Is that it?" I asked.

"You’ve got it exactly," he told me.

"But why? I mean, honestly, if some guy was married to my cousin and mugged people for a living, I’d figure he was making his own choices and could damn well take the chance of being blasted. I wouldn’t vote away my rights to help his sorry ass."

"What if it wasn’t just your one cousin’s husband, but 40% of all your male relatives between the ages of 18 and 25? What if that was, oh, I don’t know, a dozen people?" Suddenly I didn’t know what to say.

"You don’t feel that way," I said finally.

"I’m an Uncle Tom. I’ve recently come to realize that I now have very few black friends."

This statement filled me with an ineffable sadness. I know that we will get Right-To-Carry here in Missouri, even if the Governor vetoes it. That’s not the issue. And every black Missourian with a criminal record isn’t going to get shot by an armed citizen—we all know that, too. In over 98%** of the cases where a licenseholder encounters a criminal, he stops the crime without firing a shot. It’s that way in Atlanta and every other big city with a large black population in a Right-To-Carry state, so there’s no reason to think it would be any different in Kansas City or St. Louis.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 07:12 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.
"We don't know" is not a reason to acquit. We can never know anything for certain.

The question is whether there is a reasonable explanation that is supported by facts other than the one presented by the state. People are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence when they tell a different story.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 07:36 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

"Cannot be depended on" is right. But if you can't depend on Zimmerman's Fox-Noise interview for the truth about the confrontation, that doesn't mean we know that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. It means we don't know the truth about the confrontation. And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

That's not entirely true. In information theory, you can infer information from the patterns of lies/disinformation.

For example, it would be a reasonable question to ask, "why does Zimmerman feel that he needs to lie about his past?" "Why has Zimmerman changed his account of what happened that night?"

We can infer information just from the fact that he lies.

If he's lying, then one assumes he has a reason to lie. A reasonable assumption is that the reason is to cover up a crime.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:05 am
@DrewDad,
DD, You are correct. In our trial, we knew that the defendant lied to the police also. He claimed he was at home, but a cop stopped him when he was driving home that night. The cop was a witness for the prosecution.
There were other circumstantial evidence that proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was the rapist and murder.

It doesn't require "we don't know the truth about the confrontation" to convict.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
unless the state can prove otherwise that is the law sir.

Of course, but that's not my point. My point is that to prove the defendant lying isn't to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:37 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
For example, it would be a reasonable question to ask, "why does Zimmerman feel that he needs to lie about his past?" "Why has Zimmerman changed his account of what happened that night?"

We can infer information just from the fact that he lies.

I'm sure we can, but we can't prove anything from that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. And because this is a criminal trial, the question for the jury is what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not what is more likely true than not.

Drew Dad wrote:
If he's lying, then one assumes he has a reason to lie. A reasonable assumption is that the reason is to cover up a crime.

I agree. This is one reasonable assumption. But the lying does not invalidate all reasonable assumptions but the one that he covered up a crime. And that's what the prosecution needs to do to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Are you coming on to me!!!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:25 pm
@Thomas,
You wrote,
Quote:
I'm sure we can, but we can't prove anything from that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. And because this is a criminal trial, the question for the jury is what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not what is more likely true than not.


We know for a fact that Zimmerman lied, but you're also stipulating that "we can't prove anything from that fact 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Isn't that a contradiction? Truth needs to be consistent for the jury to determine what are facts. If the defendant is free to lie all he/she wants because it can confuse the jury, that's a straw man argument.

Perjury is still a serious offense, and so is lying to the police.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Isn't that a contradiction?

No, because there is only one way for a statement to be true, but many ways for it to be false. Since we know that Zimmerman lied, we can rule out that his statement is true. But we still don't know which particular alternative to his lie is true. In particular, we cannot conclude that Zimmerman committed murder and is covering up for it.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Perjury is still a serious offense, and so is lying to the police.

Then I suggest the prosecution get him convicted for that in a future trial.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:55 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
People are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence when they tell a different story.

And there is a reason for that: it's called injustice. Unless the circumstantial evidence is unusually good, it does not establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the defendant's guilt isn't established beyond a reasonable doubt, it's unjust to convict him. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it does mean it shouldn't happen.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 07:08 pm
@Thomas,
What he tells the police is after the suspect has been read his Miranda rights.

If he agrees, there's nothing more the jury has to take into consideration about the suspect's lies. The judge's instruction to the jury is also pretty clear; if the defendant is caught in a lie, the jury is free to think everything that the suspect says is a lie.

Try to get around that with "beyond a reasonable doubt" - even in this case where Zimmerman's lies will probably determine his fate.

If the jury has a question about any of the evidence presented, and they must choose, they'll probably lean towards not trusting Zimmerman.

I would think.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 07:21 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 07:45 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.

no, even if the jury discounts everything zimmerman has said because they dont believe him the state is still no where in proving that zimmerman did not shoot in self defense. zimmermans credibility might have mattered if the state had a case, but they have rested having made no case.

I think that the big story here is the multiple lies by the state in the indictment....I am hoping zimmerman sues
the state for malicious prosecution.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The judge's instruction to the jury is also pretty clear; if the defendant is caught in a lie, the jury is free to think everything that the suspect says is a lie.

I'm not sure which part of the jury instruction you're talking about. Can you remind me with a quote.

cicerone imposter wrote:
If the jury has a question about any of the evidence presented, and they must choose, they'll probably lean towards not trusting Zimmerman.

The jury need not choose, though. It is free to remain unconvinced by both sides of the case.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:26 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.

And I think you might be determined to see Zimmerman convicted because demanding an acquittal would threaten your self-image as a good, post-racist person. But I have no evidence to prove that --- and neither do you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/24/2014 at 10:53:00