Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Bernster looks like he ate a bug.
The Bernster looks like he ate a bug.
I certainly learned yesterday--'how not to make a closing argument'
'emotions'--yes, that will be a factor in the deliberations. He reminded me of some school administrators--not well liked or respected. I would have thought years of law school and trial experience would have produced a better style.
Manslaughter- TEN YEARS!!
Funny thing here, because I actually believe Zimmerman is most likely guilty of manslaughter, but I do not support, in any way, his conviction. The prosecution had a choice from the beginning to charge Zimmerman with involuntary manslaughter. They chose second degree murder. Now that they know they have no chance of getting a conviction for second degree murder, they ask the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser charge. What a crock of shit. Their case was predicated on a second degree murder charge. They did not prove their case. Case over.
One last thing in defense of Zimmerman; despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, there is some solid evidence that he showed no malice toward Travon Martin, and that proof comes in the fact that he only fired one shot. That shot was fired after he was being beaten. To what degree, we will never know, but the fact is that Martin did beat on him based on the scars he had on his face and head. Only one shot fired, and absolutely zero solid evidence showing he acted with any malice whatsoever.
If for any reason he is convicted, I can only hope to God that such a conviction would be overturned. Our justice system requires proof of guilt and that proof must come without any reasonable doubt. No matter what is done with this case, there is more than reasonable doubt, therefore there can be no conviction.
How could he be charged with involuntary manslaughter when he intentionally shot Martin?
Was reading Gretawire on Fox Nation complaining about the Defense team sitting there like "potted plants" and allowing the Prosecution to flat out lie about George Zimmerman's statements the night of the shooting. They "should have been on their feet objecting to facts not in evidence.'
I now think it was a brilliant move to handle it in the Defense closing in which the Prosecution could be painted as the intentional liar instead of Zimmerman.
I watched that segment. Her panel members did counsel her that this would be addressed by O'Mara. 'He is probably watching the show right now--he knows...' cough
I don't think I have ever heard an objection in a closing argument--but then I don't have vast experiences with court procedures.
Funny thing here, because I actually believe Zimmerman is most likely guilty of manslaughter, but I do not support, in any way, his conviction. The prosecution had a choice from the beginning to charge Zimmerman with involuntary manslaughter. They chose second degree murder. Now that they know they have no chance of getting a conviction for second degree murder, they ask the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser charge. What a crock of shit. Their case was predicated on a second degree murder charge. They did not prove their case. Case over.
One last thing in defense of Zimmerman; despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, there is some solid evidence that he showed no malice toward Travon Martin, and that proof comes in the fact that he only fired one shot. That shot was fired after he was being beaten. To what degree, we will never know, but the fact is that Martin did beat on him based on the scars he had on his face and head. Only one shot fired, and absolutely zero solid evidence showing he acted with any malice whatsoever.
If for any reason he is convicted, I can only hope to God that such a conviction would be overturned. Our justice system requires proof of guilt and that proof must come without any reasonable doubt. No matter what is done with this case, there is more than reasonable doubt, therefore there can be no conviction.
How could he be charged with involuntary manslaughter when he intentionally shot Martin?
Shooting someone when you are getting your head beat into the ground is not intentionally shooting someone. Second degree murder involves an act of going after someone with the intent to shoot them. There is zero proof whatsoever that Zimmerman had the intent to shoot Martin from the beginning.
Involuntary manslaughter can be charged when a person creates a situation that leads to the death of another person. In this case, Zimmerman was told not to pursue Trayvon Martin, yet he chose to do so anyway. While there is no solid proof, it is obvious that by following Martin, a confrontation took place at which point it became physical and Zimmerman felt threatened enough to need to use deadly force with his gun. That most definitely could and should be considered manslaughter. The real determining factor then would only come down to what you believe actually happened. Did Martin just come out of the bushes and jump Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car as he testified, or did he lie. If you believe what actually happened is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, then you have involuntary manslaughter. If you believe Zimmerman's story that Martin just jumped him as he was walking back to his car, then you have an acquittal.
The Bernster looks like he ate a bug.
I certainly learned yesterday--'how not to make a closing argument'
'emotions'--yes, that will be a factor in the deliberations. He reminded me of some school administrators--not well liked or respected. I would have thought years of law school and trial experience would have produced a better style.
He had no evidence to go on---the state has nothing. Everyone knew this a long time ago.
What statement are TM's parents hoping to make by leaving the courtroom?
They're mad because the defense is doing so well?
They think O'Mara's arguments are insulting?
What? I don't get it. To me, they look foolish for not seeing this through on behalf of their son.
O'Mara has left the jury with the same (similar) question I have asked here. Where was Trayvon between the time he disappeared and the time he reappeared? O'Mara has expanded the time he was missing to about 4 minutes, whereas I had used 2 minutes. Either way, it was time enough for Martin to get home, especially if he was "running", as his girlfriend testified.
But no! Trayvon reappeared close to where he had disappeared...looking for a fight.
The judge is a democrat. I expect nothing less. If the jury comes back with a not guilty, she must have some plan in mind to make Zimmerman guilty.
What statement are TM's parents hoping to make by leaving the courtroom?
They're mad because the defense is doing so well?
They think O'Mara's arguments are insulting?
What? I don't get it. To me, they look foolish for not seeing this through on behalf of their son.
Dad came back. They showed him about 5 minutes ago.
Funny thing here, because I actually believe Zimmerman is most likely guilty of manslaughter, but I do not support, in any way, his conviction. The prosecution had a choice from the beginning to charge Zimmerman with involuntary manslaughter. They chose second degree murder. Now that they know they have no chance of getting a conviction for second degree murder, they ask the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser charge. What a crock of shit. Their case was predicated on a second degree murder charge. They did not prove their case. Case over.
One last thing in defense of Zimmerman; despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, there is some solid evidence that he showed no malice toward Travon Martin, and that proof comes in the fact that he only fired one shot. That shot was fired after he was being beaten. To what degree, we will never know, but the fact is that Martin did beat on him based on the scars he had on his face and head. Only one shot fired, and absolutely zero solid evidence showing he acted with any malice whatsoever.
If for any reason he is convicted, I can only hope to God that such a conviction would be overturned. Our justice system requires proof of guilt and that proof must come without any reasonable doubt. No matter what is done with this case, there is more than reasonable doubt, therefore there can be no conviction.
How could he be charged with involuntary manslaughter when he intentionally shot Martin?
Shooting someone when you are getting your head beat into the ground is not intentionally shooting someone. Second degree murder involves an act of going after someone with the intent to shoot them. There is zero proof whatsoever that Zimmerman had the intent to shoot Martin from the beginning.
Involuntary manslaughter can be charged when a person creates a situation that leads to the death of another person. In this case, Zimmerman was told not to pursue Trayvon Martin, yet he chose to do so anyway. While there is no solid proof, it is obvious that by following Martin, a confrontation took place at which point it became physical and Zimmerman felt threatened enough to need to use deadly force with his gun. That most definitely could and should be considered manslaughter. The real determining factor then would only come down to what you believe actually happened. Did Martin just come out of the bushes and jump Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car as he testified, or did he lie. If you believe what actually happened is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, then you have involuntary manslaughter. If you believe Zimmerman's story that Martin just jumped him as he was walking back to his car, then you have an acquittal.
Was reading Gretawire on Fox Nation complaining about the Defense team sitting there like "potted plants" and allowing the Prosecution to flat out lie about George Zimmerman's statements the night of the shooting. They "should have been on their feet objecting to facts not in evidence.'
I now think it was a brilliant move to handle it in the Defense closing in which the Prosecution could be painted as the intentional liar instead of Zimmerman.
I watched that segment. Her panel members did counsel her that this would be addressed by O'Mara. 'He is probably watching the show right now--he knows...' cough
I don't think I have ever heard an objection in a closing argument--but then I don't have vast experiences with court procedures.
I have on several occasions seen both the Prosecution and Defense object to facts not in evidence (during the trial) inserted into closing arguments. You see it most often in more informal country courtrooms however and not generally in a high profile case like this one.
However, now that we have demonstrated that the Prosecution is shameless in manipulating the facts to fit the scenario they want the jury to believe, will they do that in their rebuttal? O'Mara won't be given any opportunity to rebut their rebuttal, but I presume he can object if the Prosecution again inserts lies into the mix.
I certainly learned yesterday--'how not to make a closing argument'
'emotions'--yes, that will be a factor in the deliberations. He reminded me of some school administrators--not well liked or respected. I would have thought years of law school and trial experience would have produced a better style.
He had no evidence to go on---the state has nothing. Everyone knew this a long time ago.
I got that impression with the child abuse charge.
Anyway--his antics diminished his credibility for me. Perhaps the jurors are so objective that they could see beyond that--I doubt it.
I would think that sort of thing is covered in law school---somewhere along the line.
I'm still informing myself on what transpired from the time of the incident. Police chief fired, special prosecutor chose to bring the case--interesting and disturbing. After the POTUS said--'If I had a son he would look like Trayvon'. I tried not to think about this case. grippped by the election and all that. Accepting harsh realities of all kinds.
JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requested with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:
March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/...oj-facilitated-zimmerman-protests-in-florida/
What statement are TM's parents hoping to make by leaving the courtroom?
They're mad because the defense is doing so well?
They think O'Mara's arguments are insulting?
What? I don't get it. To me, they look foolish for not seeing this through on behalf of their son.
Dad came back. They showed him about 5 minutes ago.
Well, that's heartening. Thanks, again, for the correction, Rat.
