The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sunshine]

did the state mention any of that before it rested

If so, I did not hear it. But, I was doing other things and not watching every minute of it.

If t he prosecution didn't put that forward in the trial, then it is 'retahded, suh' to keep putting it forward as a theory.

i have reviewed every witness so far

and i could not find that kooky theory

Then obviously the prosecution didn't believe it would be worthy of pursuing.

 

[The Rabbi]

If so, I did not hear it. But, I was doing other things and not watching every minute of it.

If t he prosecution didn't put that forward in the trial, then it is 'retahded, suh' to keep putting it forward as a theory.

i have reviewed every witness so far

and i could not find that kooky theory

Then obviously the prosecution didn't believe it would be worthy of pursuing.

The pathological posters here will just take that as evidence that the prosecution was incompetent. Much like their "overcharging" theory.

 

[Sunshine]

Since OJ keeps coming up, it should be noted that even though he could not be convicted in criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt, he was later held responsible for the death of his wife in civil court where the standard of proof is merely 'preponderance of the evidence' and not 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' and ordered to pay a handsome judgment.

He still remains 'not guilty' of murder in the realm of criminal jurisprudence.

 

[Sunshine]

i have reviewed every witness so far

and i could not find that kooky theory

Then obviously the prosecution didn't believe it would be worthy of pursuing.

The pathological posters here will just take that as evidence that the prosecution was incompetent. Much like their "overcharging" theory.

Well, I tend to be most cautions about things like accusing specific, named licensed professionals of 'incompetence.' I know a lawyer who did that once, and the other lawyer put her ass in a sling so fast she hardly knew what hit her.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, it would be refreshing to see that someone knows how to do their job. The prosecution was worse than dismal. It made me wonder if the chose the low man on the totem pole to head the case. I would like to think that they did not use the Chief Medical Examiner, either.

You can not make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
The facts never have supported a murder case.
All the prosecution did was put up their proof and facts.
And it did not jive with the cooked up story that the media spread.
You can not polish a turd.

I can't help but think they could have objected more to the defense during cross and been more prepared themselves during direct.. Perhaps a bit more competent in general. It was so sad.

You make a good point with the objections but that is a double edged sword for the prosecution as the scope of cross examination is so much broader than direct examination.
You can lead a witness on cross in most instances and not on direct.
The prosecution runs the risk of being defensive with objections and they lose most of them on cross anyway so that looks bad to a jury.

 

[Gadawg73]

If Zimmerman does not take the stand the Judge will charge the jury in the jury charges before deliberations that the defendant has no duty to testify and that should in no way is a reflection of a defendant's guilt as the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution.

 

[Ernie S.]

Quit littering the boards looking for a fight.

Quit littering the boards with your speculative bullshit. You're just butt hurt because I exposed your whining and speculation for what it was. I want truth. I want arguments. You simper and make shit up. I have no patience for that. Get up to speed or GTFO.

Good...then quit following me around with all of your speculative translations...nobody else will talk to you so you talk to yourself. It makes you look beaten and a little

Funny you should mention that seeing that no one on the other Zimmerman thread will respond to you.

 

[Sunshine]

Bernie makes George's mom subject to recall. He just doesn't want the jury to see them support their son.

She might want to give some thought to staying off Twitter for a while.

 

[Sunshine]

Quit littering the boards with your speculative bullshit. You're just butt hurt because I exposed your whining and speculation for what it was. I want truth. I want arguments. You simper and make shit up. I have no patience for that. Get up to speed or GTFO.

Good...then quit following me around with all of your speculative translations...nobody else will talk to you so you talk to yourself. It makes you look beaten and a little

Funny you should mention that seeing that no one on the other Zimmerman thread will respond to you.

 

[Sunshine]

OK, guys and dolls, even if the subliminal messages are supposed to be that Zimmerman was bigger and badder than li'l Trayvon, do you really believe the out of shape person pictured below is capable of whipping any black ass?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Bernie makes George's mom subject to recall. He just doesn't want the jury to see them support their son.

She might want to give some thought to staying off Twitter for a while.

I haven't seen George's mom using twitter, facebook, or any of that stuff.

It's little Tampon's mother doing that.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I fucking LOVE autocorrect sometimes.

 

[Jackson]

You can not make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
The facts never have supported a murder case.
All the prosecution did was put up their proof and facts.
And it did not jive with the cooked up story that the media spread.
You can not polish a turd.

I can't help but think they could have objected more to the defense during cross and been more prepared themselves during direct.. Perhaps a bit more competent in general. It was so sad.

You make a good point with the objections but that is a double edged sword for the prosecution as the scope of cross examination is so much broader than direct examination.
You can lead a witness on cross in most instances and not on direct.
The prosecution runs the risk of being defensive with objections and they lose most of them on cross anyway so that looks bad to a jury.

Did you mean to say that the scope of cross examination is broader than direct examination? I think not. The defense team has to stay within the parameters defined by the prosecution team. If they want to go beyond that, they have to call the witness in their case in chief.

 

[Gadawg73]

I can't help but think they could have objected more to the defense during cross and been more prepared themselves during direct.. Perhaps a bit more competent in general. It was so sad.

You make a good point with the objections but that is a double edged sword for the prosecution as the scope of cross examination is so much broader than direct examination.
You can lead a witness on cross in most instances and not on direct.
The prosecution runs the risk of being defensive with objections and they lose most of them on cross anyway so that looks bad to a jury.

Did you mean to say that the scope of cross examination is broader than direct examination? I think not. The defense team has to stay within the parameters defined by the prosecution team. If they want to go beyond that, they have to call the witness in their case in chief.

Man, you are off base on that one. Not true.
The prosecution does not set any parameters for the defense to go by.
Where in the hell did you hear that?
Cross examination IS limited in these areas in Federal court: topics involved in the direct examination and the complete credibility of the witness.
Now in Federal court they go by a strict rule but in Florida and many other states they go by "the wide open rule" which allows on cross ANY issue in the trial.
How else could the defense get in many issues with the police on everything and anything to do with Zimmerman that night?

 

[Ernie S.]

My granddaughter could whip his ass. Hell, I'd take 5:1 odds that 25 even could.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sunshine. It's because people picture that guy going up against this guy:

But he didnt. He was actually up against this guy:

 

[Snookie]

Bernie makes George's mom subject to recall. He just doesn't want the jury to see them support their son.

She might want to give some thought to staying off Twitter for a while.

I haven't seen George's mom using twitter, facebook, or any of that stuff.

It's little Tampon's mother doing that.

That's because she's illiterate.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Zimmerman does not take the stand the Judge will charge the jury in the jury charges before deliberations that the defendant has no duty to testify and that should in no way is a reflection of a defendant's guilt as the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I'm unclear how FL law works in this case. Does the state have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense? Is the burden on the defense to show that he was in reasonable fear of death? Each state statute is a little different.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

She might want to give some thought to staying off Twitter for a while.

I haven't seen George's mom using twitter, facebook, or any of that stuff.

It's little Tampon's mother doing that.

That's because she's illiterate.

Is that what your horsie told you to say?

 

[Immanuel]

You DO have the right to shoot another person when that other person is beating you and pounding your head into the pavement if, under those circumstances, you reasonably feel that your life is in peril or your are facing the risk of serious physical injury because of the beat down.

It doesn't matter if the other guy is armed or not. Oh, and that kind of a beat down IS breaking the law.

Quite often, the one who resorts to self defense IS the only surviving witness.

The only problem with that..is that you have to establish that it was the type of beating that warranted the action.

You make thing a few boo boos are life threatening. I don't.

And given that it was Zimmerman that initiated the incident, I think that "self defense" here should require, at the very least, a reasonable fear that death was imminent.

GZ and his defense team DID establish that he got the kind of beating that warrants raising the claim of justification. NOW it is up to the STATE to DISPROVE it.

It is not the degree of injury suffered that justifies the action.

It is the kind of injury one reasonably feels, under the circumstances, that he is confronted with.

And no. I don't think a few boo boos are life threatening. But I DO think that if you have a guy on top of you pounding your noggin onto the pavement after you have had your nose broken by that guy, you MIGHT very well think that it is going to END badly for you. REAL badly. You might think you are about to have your skull busted or that you are about to die. (I also don't think a broken nose is anywhere near akin to a mere boo boo.)

YOU seem to think that such a thought process is unreasonable unless the injuries are already severe. I think you are simply and totally wrong on that point.

The idea that some people on this site seem to believe that you must wait until you have been beaten to within a second of losing your life before you can take defensive action seems ludicrous to me.

Immie