The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

And thoughts like "this doesn't make sense" and "I think" don't get you to a proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

fine - and you're doing a whole pile of "I think" around the issue of a possible concussion.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

fine - and you're doing a whole pile of "I think" around the issue of a possible concussion.

I do --- because the possibility alone is enough for the defense.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

if there actually was a possibility there would have neurologists testifying by the bagful

it's as possible as an actual injury in a world cup game eh

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Closing argument are under way, I don't think De la Rionda is doing too bad.
I am glad West is not giving the defense's closing arguments as the other guy kind of rambles on in a sing song voice.

Don West is a better trial lawyer than O' Mara.

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

DrewDad wrote:

This is supports the evidence that the fight was not life threatening.

Thomas wrote:

It can certainly seem life threatening, even to a reasonable person such as yourself, when there's no referee
to stop the fight after the guy knocks you out, and when you don't know he's in it for the trophy, not for you.

U 'd have been a good lawyer; probably better than Mark O' Mara.

David

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

We saw physician-assistant Folgate and forensic pathologist diMaio testify that the possibility is there. That's less than a bagful, to be sure. But it should be enough for the defense, given how little it has to prove.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

He has his problems but I agree he would be better at closing. I'm might be out in morning so might miss it...probably a good thing. Been glued to the tv these three weeks.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Dave makes my point in blinding clarity. His universe has Zimmerman (the innocent) supported by the angels of law and public opinions .
I think Dave wil be surprised to hear that there are probably as many who feel strongly at a 180 polar extremity.

Ill bet the prosecution presents some real zingers in their sur- rebuttal.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But it should be enough for the defense, given how little it has to prove.

I think they had a lot to prove, and failed to do it. They did not prove their client was truthful, and that was their biggest hurdle. If his account was not honest, and the state pointed out obvious lies--like he claimed he didn't know the name of the street, in a complex that he'd lived in for 4 years, and that has only 3 streets--and the jury believes he was not fully honest, they can disregard his entire self defense claim.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Those aren't neurologists. If they can't bring in the right specialists for the issue, they got bupkis.

0 Replies

@firefly,

There aren't that many streets where he was the neighborhood watch, and he can't remember the name of a street?

Wanna buy a bridge?

0 Replies

http://media.tumblr.com/9586225d227d4d86e57b22e6f147c701/tumblr_inline_mk0vcxvKTf1qap3w2.jpg

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Actually, the prosecutions case rests on the fact that it is morally and legally improper to shoot and kill an unarmed person.

5 Replies

@parados,

Especially since Martin wasn't committing a crime, and he had the legal authority to be in that neighborhood, and to walk home from the store.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Actually, the prosecutions case rests on the fact that it is morally and legally improper to shoot and kill an unarmed person.

No, it's not illegal for an armed person to shoot an unarmed person. Zimmerman was seriously wounded and claimed that he was in fear for his physical integrity, if not his life. If he was under a violent attack, then he would be justified. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't.

4 Replies

@Brandon9000,

but the only eyewitness is a known liar...

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Those are good questions, but how about the right of a young teenager who goes to the store to buy candy and just walking back to his father's house?

He's followed by a wanna-be cop with a gun, and suspects he's up to no good, and follows him until they confront each other.

Martin didn't commit any crime, but his pursuer thought he was up to no good.

Thinking ill will is not illegal, but to follow somebody until they notice you and confronts you is a natural reaction - especially if your a black teenager who's done nothing wrong. Why are you following me?

Because I have a gun, and I wanna be a cop.

Well, maybe I should have stayed in my car, because the police were on their way. Yup!

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

but the only eyewitness is a known liar...

"innocent till proven guilty" is such a bitch of a law for you good ol boys ain't it.....

"Get a rope!" is more your speed.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Actually, the prosecutions case rests on the fact that it is morally and legally improper to shoot and kill an unarmed person.

the law does not support your opinion.

Too bad for you that in this nation the law is supposed to rule, not the mob which claims to be the guardians of morality.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

True, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. That's still a possibility - if you've been watching the trial, and been listening to the pundits. Nobody yet really knows - except you who thinks "liberals" already have their ropes ready.

TNCFS

3 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know