27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:41 pm
@firefly,
But what he told the police is evidence of the trial, and it can be held against him - if the jury wishes to proceed with that conclusion.

Quote:
witness legal definition of witness. witness synonyms by the …
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/witness
witness 1) n. a person who testifies under oath in a trial (or a deposition which may be used in a trial if the witness is not available) with first-hand or expert ..


Also,
Quote:
impeach v. 1) to attempt to prove that a witness has not told the truth or has been inconsistent, by introducing contrary evidence, including statements made outside of the courtroom in depositions or in statements of the witness heard by another. 2) to charge a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office. One President, Andrew Johnson in 1868, was charged with violation of federal laws in a politically-motivated impeachment, but was acquitted by the margin of one vote in a trial held by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impending impeachment charges brought by the House of Representatives in the Watergate affair, in which he obstructed the investigation and lied to Congress about his participation. Several federal judges have been impeached and nine have been found guilty by the Senate.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I know all that!



That's the reason why I'm leaving the decision up to the jurors.
The jury has C. I. 's permission
to decide the case!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

But what he told the police is evidence of the trial, and it can be held against him - if the jury wishes to proceed with that conclusion.

Quote:
witness legal definition of witness. witness synonyms by the …
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/witness
witness 1) n. a person who testifies under oath in a trial (or a deposition which may be used in a trial if the witness is not available) with first-hand or expert ..


Also,
Quote:
impeach v. 1) to attempt to prove that a witness has not told the truth or has been inconsistent, by introducing contrary evidence, including statements made outside of the courtroom in depositions or in statements of the witness heard by another. 2) to charge a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office.

One President, Andrew Johnson in 1868,
was charged with violation of federal laws in a politically-motivated impeachment, but was acquitted by the margin of one vote in a trial held by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impending impeachment charges brought by the House of Representatives in the Watergate affair, in which he obstructed the investigation and lied to Congress about his participation. Several federal judges have been impeached and nine have been found guilty by the Senate.
C. I. loves leftist prejudiced lexicography,
that omits the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

What does that tell us about C. I. 's credibility??
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Sure, it is evidence, very important evidence, regarding his credibility.

But technically, he's not a witness in this case. I don't believe that any of those past statements of his were given under oath, and they weren't really depositions. But those past statements are still evidence of where he has apparently lied, or been inconsistent or contradictory.

His credibility will be a major issue for the jury.

I really wish the jury could know about the lying to the court, and his own lawyer, about his assets, so he could get a lower bail--that was brazen lying that involved a rather elaborate scheme. The man is a liar.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Clinton was not charged with anything; you're a ******* dummy! The two charges were dropped. The GOP went hunting for bait, and found nothing!

It was a private sexual indiscretion. Now, the GOP wants to go into women's vagina.

Try to figure that one out, dumbshit.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:50 pm
@firefly,
I agree; only if that's what they take up as an issue. They may not.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think the jury can fail to consider his credibility--it's a major factor in the state's case, the state does think he's lying about what led to the shooting. And they pointed out possible lies in his account of those events.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:57 pm
@Thomas,
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.
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.
Of course; that is obvious to anyone
who is not driven by impassioned anti-white hatred of Zimmy.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Clinton was not charged with anything; you're a ******* dummy! The two charges were dropped. The GOP went hunting for bait, and found nothing!

It was a private sexual indiscretion. Now, the GOP wants to go into women's vagina.

Try to figure that one out, dumbshit.
Re-writing history, huh??
Now u tell us that Clinton was not impeached !
That is humorous.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Impeached on false grounds. They didn't find anything to impeach. They DROPPED IT.

Bringing forward impeachment doesn't necessarily result in a charge of any crime. He was not charged with treason and bribery aspects or high crimes and misdemeanors. THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:15 pm
@parados,
Quote:
And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.
parados wrote:
"We don't know" is not a reason to acquit. We can never know anything for certain.
U just blew my mind, Mr. Parados.
I had a higher opinion of u,
and of your analytical ability and your honesty.

I know that there is NO chance
that u 'd have said that about trial of a black defendant. O, well.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Impeached on false grounds. They didn't find anything to impeach. They DROPPED IT.
In your mind,
history happened differently, I guess.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No, history happened as I have described them. Clinton remained the president after the impeachment was found to be groundless.

You must stop using FOX News as your history resource.
JTT
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Clinton was not charged with anything; you're a ******* dummy! The two charges were dropped.


Truth compels me to let you know that OmSig is right, CI. The charges weren't dropped. He was impeached by the House. There weren't sufficient votes to convict in the Senate.

Quote:
C. I. loves leftist prejudiced lexicography,
that omits the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

What does that tell us about C. I. 's credibility??


Truth also compels me to point out that OmSig should not be pointing fingers. What credibility could a "man", who actively supported Joe McCarthy and what he did, possibly have?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:29 pm
@Thomas,
Kinda depends on your definition of "prove" and "reasonable doubt."

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:30 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
I have a test for everyone:

Change everything 180 degrees. Trayvon is in Zimmerman's shoe - a trial for killing George with a claimed self defense defense, claiming George was walking through the neighborhood looking suspect. All the same evidence with Jeantel being a friend of George but is more educated and presentable in court. George is still neighborhood watch, but a minor. Trayvon is a respectable black man, but not neighborhood watch.

Is your gut feeling still the same? Mine is.....but, I think Trayvon would have been immediately arrested and given a bail he couldn't meet. The trial would also not have received national attention and would already have been over with Trayvon in prison for many years.
If a white jumped a black
merely because of being followed by the black
and if the black were having his head beaten against the cement,
then it 'd be morally n legally proper for the black to shoot the white,
just as Zimmy did.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
No, history happened as I have described them.
We all lived thru it and we all know what actually happened,
despite what u and your lying liberal lexicografer claim: "One President Andrew Johnson . . . "


cicerone imposter wrote:
Clinton remained the president after the impeachment was found to be groundless.
That 's irrelevant; it was the same for Andrew Johnson.
Maybe u claim that Johnson was not impeached either.


Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.
I cheered when it happened.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jul, 2013 11:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Definition of impeach (vt)
Bing Dictionary
im·peach [ im pch ]
accuse official of offense: to charge a serving government official with serious misconduct while in office
cast somebody out of public office: to remove somebody such as a president or a judge from public office because of having committed serious crimes and misdemeanors or because of other gross misconduct
bring charges against somebody: to charge somebody with a crime or misdemeanor


As I've said, they were all DISMISSED. The accusations were groundless.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 8 Jul, 2013 02:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Definition of impeach (vt)
Bing Dictionary
im·peach [ im pch ]
accuse official of offense: to charge a serving government official with serious misconduct while in office
cast somebody out of public office: to remove somebody such as a president or a judge from public office because of having committed serious crimes and misdemeanors or because of other gross misconduct
bring charges against somebody: to charge somebody with a crime or misdemeanor


As I've said, they were all DISMISSED. The accusations were groundless.
Really?? Clinton was NOT impeached
on December 19, 1998, according to C. I.??

Did America have a MASS HALLUCINATION on that date???

Then, I take it, that Andrew Johnson was not impeached either,
and it has been only a false rumor, malicious against Mr. Johnson 's character
and his place in American history, right, C. I. ???





David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 8 Jul, 2013 06:52 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye...
Clearly the state has a case. If it didn't have a case the judge would have agreed to the defense motion to dismiss.

Your argument that simply claiming self defense means all other facts should be dismissed goes against the law.

Zimmerman made several decisions that put together led to the death of Martin. If he had not made those decisions he would not be charged with a crime. Whether those decisions Zimmerman made are enough to convict him of a crime, we will just have to wait until the jury comes back with a decision.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 03:14:34