12
   

State pushes to keep Trayvon Martin's past out of George Zimmerman trial

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:14 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Don't you think you have already convicted him in your mind? You love to counter act anything said about Zimmerman which could be good and love to focus on what makes him look bad.

No I really haven't convicted him in my mind.

But I am aware of the inconsistencies in his version of events, as well as other ambiguities in this case, that more than justify why this case belongs in a courtroom, for a jury to decide.

I also like to play devil's advocate in countering the claims made by some posters, who seem to unquestioningly accept Zimmerman's account, without fully considering the evidence that might not support, or might refute, his version.

If he's guilty, the prosecution will have to convince me of that at trial.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:37 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

If he reached for and failed to get a hold of it, that would support the lack of DNA on the gun.

Um... we don't need to support a lack of DNA on the gun. Lack of Martin's DNA on the gun is an established fact.

Zimmerman has no support for his claim that Martin reached for the gun.

Sadly for Zimmerman, he has proven to be his own worst enemy throughout this debacle. He has undermined his own credibility at every turn.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:38 pm
@firefly,
there is in that case also no evidence that Zimmerman is lying. I bet that the evidence shows that we cant know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened, in which case the jury should return a not guilty verdict.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

there is in that case also no evidence that Zimmerman is lying.

So it goes to Zimmerman's credibility... which is just about zero.

hawkeye10 wrote:
I bet that the evidence shows that we cant know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened, in which case the jury should return a not guilty verdict.

Once again, the standard is "reasonable" doubt, not "beyond a shadow of a" doubt.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:47 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

there is in that case also no evidence that Zimmerman is lying.

So it goes to Zimmerman's credibility... which is just about zero.

hawkeye10 wrote:
I bet that the evidence shows that we cant know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened, in which case the jury should return a not guilty verdict.

Once again, the standard is "reasonable" doubt, not "beyond a shadow of a" doubt.



beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and inconclusive evidence can not get a jury there unless they avoid the law. and actually no dna on the gun does not damage Zimmermans credibility in the slightest because he never said anything that would lead us to expect it there.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 12:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
if memory serves Zimmerman said that Martin saw the gun and he feared that Martin would go for it, as Martin had him pinned. He never said that Martin did go for it. Fucked up florida law has it that Zimmerman was justified in shooting to kill out of fear only, so no attempt to actually take the gun is required.

Zimmerman must be tried under the law, not the law that most of us wish that Florida had.
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
there is in that case also no evidence that Zimmerman is lying.

Inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements to the police, as well as contradictory evidence, and a lack of supporting evidence, all contribute to evaluating his credibility.
Quote:
I bet that the evidence shows that we cant know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened.


Beyond "a shadow of a doubt" the evidence already shows that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, who was unarmed, and who was not engaged in the commission of any criminal act prior to his confrontation with Zimmerman. Now that killing must be shown to be legally justifiable self-defense, under Florida law, for Zimmerman to be found not criminally liable for that death. It's that claim, of justifiable self-defense, as defined by Florida law, that the state will attempt to refute.



RABEL222
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Why dident the asshole stay in his car and avoid all this ****. He should be convicted on this fact alone.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:06 pm
@firefly,
the law instructs the jury to believe Zimmerman unless they have evidence to the contrary...inconclusive evidence gets a not guilty verdict under the law.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:09 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Why dident the asshole stay in his car and avoid all this ****. He should be convicted on this fact alone.

the law does not criminalize putting youself in the location of an attacker. if it did rape cases would rarely get a conviction....we would just tell these women getting raped was their own fault and be done with it.
firefly
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
inconclusive evidence gets a not guilty verdict under the law

Juries don't need conclusive, with 100% certainty, evidence to find a guilty verdict. They need sufficient evidence, to lead them to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty as charged.

Juries evaluate evidence and connect the dots--they are expected to think. If we had all crimes videotaped, and witnessed, so that there were no doubts or questions about what took place, in anyone's mind, we really wouldn't need juries or trials to determine the facts or the verdict. In our legal system, the jurors are the "finders of fact"--it's what they conclude from the evidence they are presented that determines the verdict.
Quote:
the law instructs the jury to believe Zimmerman unless they have evidence to the contrary

And inconsistences in his statements to police, or contradictory evidence, calls his credibility into question, particularly if there is no supporting evidence, or if that evidence is weak. If the jury has questions about his credibility, based on such things, they don't have to believe him. Zimmerman's credibility is a major factor in this case.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

the law does not criminalize putting youself in the location of an attacker.

How do you know Martin was "an attacker" rather than the one acting in self defense? A strange guy was following him--how would he know what Zimmerman was up to?.

It's clear you've made up your mind before the trial--and without hearing the evidence that will be presented at trial.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 01:51 pm
@firefly,
Zimmerman said that Martin was the attacker and the state has not yet put any evidence in the public domain that proves that he was not, therefor under the law the state must presume that Martin was the attacker.

in a just society the state must follow its own laws, and it does not appear that they have here. they should change this particular law, but dragging Zimmerman into the system when to date there is no reason to think that they have any case under the law as it existed on that day smacks of abuse.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 02:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
But then this is the banana republic state where the boss decided he did not like the result that the system yeilded so he created an extracurricular process to target one particular citizen...so anyone who expects fidelity to the law to eventually commence is probably drinking way more than they should.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 02:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Zimmerman said that Martin was the attacker and the state has not yet put any evidence in the public domain that proves that he was not...


That's why we're having a trial, birdbrain, that's where they put forth the evidence to prove their case.

And you are disregarding information the state did put into the public domain indicating that it was Zimmerman who approached Martin and provoked a confrontation, beside all the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's version of events. If you're too lazy to hunt it up, you'll just have to wait for the trial.
Quote:
dragging Zimmerman into the system when to date there is no reason to think that they have any case under the law as it existed on that day smacks of abuse

Oh they have plenty of reason to think they have a criminal case against Zimmerman, it's just that you seem to have missed, or ignored, all that information.

Stop with the "abuse" nonsense. Zimmerman is not being abused by the state because he is being held to account for killing someone--and someone who was not armed--and because he must stand trial. You can't go around killing people, without criminal liability, unless such actions are justifiable under Florida law, and Zimmerman's inconsistent statements to the police, as well as other evidence, raises questions about the legal justification for this killing. And it was Zimmerman's decision to forgo a Stand Your Ground hearing.

Wait for the trial, maybe then you'll learn something.



Baldimo
 
  0  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 04:23 pm
@firefly,
The state only got involved when Martins parents hired a lawyer. The state had pretty much said he was innocent. Public pressure and the media have driven this case to the courts. Or did you forget the media putting out doctored tapes that made Zimmerman look like a racist or that they put out pictures that were of poor quality to minimize the beating Zimmerman took. Or how about using pic's of a small 12 year old Martin instead of pic's that showed him to be the size of a full grown man?
RABEL222
 
  3  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 04:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
When he left the car he became the attacker.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 04:43 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

When he left the car he became the attacker.

walking up to someone in your subdivision to talk to them is not an "attack". Zimmerman was were he had a right to be and did what what he had a right to do until and unless he threw the first punch.the state has brought forward no evidence to date that Zimmerman is lying that martin threw the first punch, and if they dont have that then they have noting. it does not matter what the boss thinks happened, it only matters what the state can prove....in theory. in this corrupt system the reality is sometimes different.

I understand that inventing new personal secret meanings for words is common practice, but it still wrong.
revelette
 
  3  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 04:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
walking up to someone in your subdivision to talk to them is not an "attack
".

He was following Tryavon for no reason other than he looked suspicious. When he called 911, they told him not to follow him. He ignored that warning and Trayvon ends up dead armed with nothing but skittles and a bottle of tea.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 14 Jun, 2013 04:52 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Quote:
walking up to someone in your subdivision to talk to them is not an "attack
".

He was following Tryavon for no reason other than he looked suspicious. When he called 911, they told him not to follow him. He ignored that warning and Trayvon ends up dead armed with nothing but skittles and a bottle of tea.

Zimmerman sounds like a damn fine citizen, I know..... I would like more like him in my subdivision.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 05:57:46