Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (8 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

No history of violence? The dude got arrested for domestic violence, and battery against a police officer while resisting arrest. He also got fired from a job for being too aggressive with patrons. Coworkers said he had a jekyll and hyde personality. He could be nice, and then hot tempered and snap.

He has never been convicted of any violent offense, just accused.. And the un-named co-worker interview with a reporter is hearsay..

I didn't say he was convicted. I said he was arrested, which is true. I also know you are a cheerleader of team Zimmerman.

You implied that he has a "history of violence".. No, he has a history of being accused of violence 3 times, and it never being proven..I'm a cheerleader for rational thought..

 

[pantherclub]

But you are an enemy of the English language

 

[Charlie Frown]

Well, that marijuana evidence is important. After all, we all know how marijuana can make people violent.

we all know that people who sell drugs are the least violent people around.. And that teens that are involved with drugs and getting suspended from school, and carrying around stolen jewelry, etc are non violent types.. The violent ones are the ones who abstain from drugs and never get suspended from school, and wouldn't be in possession of stolen property..

I've known people who've sold a little pot, and I've known plenty of people who smoked it (myself included) and violence is not something I would associate with any of them, including the sellers. I've known plenty of people who were suspended from school, and I've known a few people who stole jewelry, and none of them were murderers.

BUT- if you have a BLACK guy who carries around stolen jewelry and sells drugs, then that guy is likely to be a thug and a murderer. At least, that's what the stereotype says. And this is why this "evidence" should never be admitted- because it's inherently racist.

Not if it's true.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But you are an enemy of the English language

Beats being an enemy of rational thought...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

But you are an enemy of the English language

Beats being an enemy of rational thought...

 

[timschochet]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

 

[timschochet]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

As for the time elements, they certainly raise questions and may contribute to Zimmerman's defense. But again, that defense has to be made. By itself, none of these things change the essential fact that is not disputed, which is that George Zimmerman fired his gun at Trayvon Martin and killed him. For this not to be murder, Zimmerman has to give the jury a reason for killing, namely that he did it in self defense. None of the other stuff, not the witness, nor the timing, nor the injuries, provide that reason in itself. Zimmerman has to provide it. That's why he has to testify.

 

[timschochet]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

Just like it's premature for you to assume he won't corroborate, or that Zimmerman gets crossed up by the prosecution..

 

[timschochet]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I do hope he's convicted, because I think he's guilty of murder. But a fair trial is more important.

 

[timschochet]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

Just like it's premature for you to assume he won't corroborate, or that Zimmerman gets crossed up by the prosecution..

Of course. That's what I think will happen. It might not.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

I assume he cannot confirm who was screaming, but once he confirms that Martin was on top, that much he is sure, can anyone in their right mind assume the man on top putting the beat down is the one screaming for help absent any strong evidence to support that far fetched scenario?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

As for the time elements, they certainly raise questions and may contribute to Zimmerman's defense. But again, that defense has to be made. By itself, none of these things change the essential fact that is not disputed, which is that George Zimmerman fired his gun at Trayvon Martin and killed him. For this not to be murder, Zimmerman has to give the jury a reason for killing, namely that he did it in self defense. None of the other stuff, not the witness, nor the timing, nor the injuries, provide that reason in itself. Zimmerman has to provide it. That's why he has to testify.

Officer Floridian jerkpistol, is it true that Mr Zimmerman told you in a sworn statement on the night of Trayvon's death that he was in fear or great bodily harm and that he discharged his weapon in self defense?

I think I've read somewhere that the defense is planning on using the testimony of several of the law enforcement officers who were on the scene and investigated the case..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I do hope he's convicted, because I think he's guilty of murder. But a fair trial is more important.

I think you think he's guilty of murder because you don't like guns, you don't think people should own guns to protect themselves, you think if everything happened just as it did that night and Zimmerman did not have his gun that there is 0 chance that Martin could have killed him with his bare hands.

 

[timschochet]

Question for everyone on both sides: should this trial be televised?

Of course, selfishly, we all want it to be televised because nearly everybody that has contributed to this thread will likely be glued to it. But in the interests of justice, should it be?

Carolina Hustler predicts there will be a riot if Zimmerman walks. I disagree, but one of the reasons some people believe there was a riot after the Rodney King trial was because it was not televised, which gave minorities a belief in a conspiracy outcome. On the other hand, many people believe that had OJ Simpson been convicted, there would have been a riot in part because so many people were watching. So both arguments have been made. What should be done here?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I do hope he's convicted, because I think he's guilty of murder. But a fair trial is more important.

That's why you cheer every pitfall including the, what seems to be, extortion by the prosecutions voice expert...

Sounds like you want a fair trial.. really it does..

 

[timschochet]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

I assume he cannot confirm who was screaming, but once he confirms that Martin was on top, that much he is sure, can anyone in their right mind assume the man on top putting the beat down is the one screaming for help absent any strong evidence to support that far fetched scenario?

Not far fetched at all if they were wrestling around and both guys were "on top" at times during the struggle.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I do hope he's convicted, because I think he's guilty of murder. But a fair trial is more important.

I think you think he's guilty of murder because you don't like guns, you don't think people should own guns to protect themselves, you think if everything happened just as it did that night and Zimmerman did not have his gun that there is 0 chance that Martin could have killed him with his bare hands.

And because Trayvon was black and Timmy has much white shame and over compensates..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

It's not wishful thinking. There have been two reports about this guy "John" that we know about. Both of them are over a year old. In one of them he stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming for help. In the other story, a month later, he reportedly stated that while he's still pretty sure that Martin was on top, he's no longer sure who was screaming for help. We have no idea who this guy is, how close he was, what he's going to say in court and how he will handle cross-examination. I think it's really premature at this point to just assume that he will automatically corroborate Zimmerman's story and that will be the end of it.

I assume he cannot confirm who was screaming, but once he confirms that Martin was on top, that much he is sure, can anyone in their right mind assume the man on top putting the beat down is the one screaming for help absent any strong evidence to support that far fetched scenario?

Not far fetched at all if they were wrestling around and both guys were "on top" at times during the struggle.

That doesn't matter, that's speculation, what matters is what he can testify to.. If he didn't see Zimmerman on top, it might as well have never happened..

 

[timschochet]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I do hope he's convicted, because I think he's guilty of murder. But a fair trial is more important.

I think you think he's guilty of murder because you don't like guns, you don't think people should own guns to protect themselves, you think if everything happened just as it did that night and Zimmerman did not have his gun that there is 0 chance that Martin could have killed him with his bare hands.

Almost everything you wrote here is incorrect.

1. I do like guns. (Though I don't own any myself.)

2. I do think people should own guns to protect themselves- I just would like them all registered.

3. I have no problem with people using guns in legitimate cases of self-defense, and I'm glad when they do.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Question for everyone on both sides: should this trial be televised?

Of course, selfishly, we all want it to be televised because nearly everybody that has contributed to this thread will likely be glued to it. But in the interests of justice, should it be?

Carolina Hustler predicts there will be a riot if Zimmerman walks. I disagree, but one of the reasons some people believe there was a riot after the Rodney King trial was because it was not televised, which gave minorities a belief in a conspiracy outcome. On the other hand, many people believe that had OJ Simpson been convicted, there would have been a riot in part because so many people were watching. So both arguments have been made. What should be done here?

There won't be a riot because Zimmerman did not murder him.

 

[Christo]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It's funny to me that when the black guy "contemplates buying a gun with a friend", that makes him suspect in your eyes. But the white guy, who already has a gun, and uses it to kill in this situation, is innocent. Go figure.

This contradicts your last post. Big difference when someone posts, "uses it to kill" and "uses it to defend themselves."

People do not get their ccw to kill other people, this is clearly your primary viewpoint and not what you are back-peddling about in your last post. Unless you think Zimmerman was following Martin with his weapon drawn you cannot backup that statement.

Thanks to the NY Times they went ahead and (accidentally) documented that concealed carry permit holders were five times less likely to kill someone outside of self-defense than their non-permit holding neighbors, and 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

 

[timschochet]

It's funny to me that when the black guy "contemplates buying a gun with a friend", that makes him suspect in your eyes. But the white guy, who already has a gun, and uses it to kill in this situation, is innocent. Go figure.

This contradicts your last post. Big difference when someone posts, "uses it to kill" and "uses it to defend themselves."

People do not get their ccw to kill other people, this is clearly your primary viewpoint and not what you are back-peddling about in your last post. Unless you think Zimmerman was following Martin with his weapon drawn you cannot backup that statement.

Thanks to the NY Times they went ahead and (accidentally) documented that concealed carry permit holders were five times less likely to kill someone outside of self-defense than their non-permit holding neighbors:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

No. My only point in the post you're referencing here is that one of the charges you made against Martin was that he was trying to purchase a gun. If you're going to make that charge, then what about the guy who already has the gun? I found that ironic.

But again, I have nothing against Zimmerman having a gun, and nothing against him having a CCW, and nothing against him using the gun in self-defense. I don't believe this was self-defense. As for agendas, there are lots of agendas being pursued here on both sides. I think racism has played a part here and I haven't shied from saying so. But I don't have any agenda, other than wanting to see justice done.

 

[Christo]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

 

[Christo]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's funny to me that when the black guy "contemplates buying a gun with a friend", that makes him suspect in your eyes. But the white guy, who already has a gun, and uses it to kill in this situation, is innocent. Go figure.

This contradicts your last post. Big difference when someone posts, "uses it to kill" and "uses it to defend themselves."

People do not get their ccw to kill other people, this is clearly your primary viewpoint and not what you are back-peddling about in your last post. Unless you think Zimmerman was following Martin with his weapon drawn you cannot backup that statement.

Thanks to the NY Times they went ahead and (accidentally) documented that concealed carry permit holders were five times less likely to kill someone outside of self-defense than their non-permit holding neighbors:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

No. My only point in the post you're referencing here is that one of the charges you made against Martin was that he was trying to purchase a gun. If you're going to make that charge, then what about the guy who already has the gun? I found that ironic.

But again, I have nothing against Zimmerman having a gun, and nothing against him having a CCW, and nothing against him using the gun in self-defense. I don't believe this was self-defense. As for agendas, there are lots of agendas being pursued here on both sides. I think racism has played a part here and I haven't shied from saying so. But I don't have any agenda, other than wanting to see justice done.

Trayvon was trying to illegally obtain a gun. Zimmerman was legal..

 

[BustedKnuckles]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

so could zimmerman be questioned about anything he said on that video or not? If his story changed over time ,from one interview to another?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

so could zimmerman be questioned about anything he said on that video or not? If his story changed over time ,from one interview to another?

All he would have to say is "I do not recall"

 

[timschochet]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

so could zimmerman be questioned about anything he said on that video or not? If his story changed over time ,from one interview to another?

All he would have to say is "I do not recall"

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

 

[Christo]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

so could zimmerman be questioned about anything he said on that video or not? If his story changed over time ,from one interview to another?

Prior consistent and inconsistent statements can be used to bolster or impeach testimony on the stand.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

They have the video walk through with Zimmerman narrating, are you assuming that is not admissible as evidence? What's the difference between that and him testifying? Witness and wounds and timeline is the preponderance of evidence that he needs. Those 1 minute and 33 seconds he was on the phone weigh heavily on his side, especially since there is not much time between when he hangs up and when the first officer is on the scene.

Where are you hearing the witness' deposition has changed or won't be available? I think it is wishful thinking and once the audio expert is ruled out I don't see the prosecution having anything to dispute Zimmerman's story nor anything to explain the timeline issues with any story that narrates a different story.

You'll have to consult a lawyer (and I am not one) but it's my understanding that any narration by Zimmerman on tape would be inadmissible unless the prosecution has a right to cross-examine him.

It's hearsay.

then whats the reason for doing a video like that in the first place?

It's easier than taking notes.

so notes are also hearsay? whats admissible

?

Live testimony from witnesses on the stand under oath & properly authenticated physical evidence.

so could zimmerman be questioned about anything he said on that video or not? If his story changed over time ,from one interview to another?

All he would have to say is "I do not recall"

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..

But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

 

[pantherclub]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I swear to God I think you are illiterate.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It strikes me as hilarious that so many of you think it won't be necessary for Zimmerman to testify:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/will-george-zimmerman-testify-in-own-defense-if-case-goes-to-trial/

Still, if the case does proceed to trial, criminal defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean said Zimmerman really wouldn't have any other option but to testify in his own defense.

"I believe that based on the evidence, that's at least come out through the media, that he will almost have to testify ... he still has to produce [...] evidence that he was acting in self defense," she said. So far, there are no witnesses who can corroborate that that was the case.

"In order to establish self-defense, he's going to have to demonstrate that he actually believed he was in fear for his life, and really only George Zimmerman can say that. ... He has to explain what was going on his head."

Regarding the bolded, tdoss assures us that there in fact IS a witness, "John", who will testify that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. But that is not the case. If John actually does testify to what he reportedly said (and there is much question about this) he will say that there was a struggle and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. At MOST all this would do is help to corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was acting in self-defense. The injuries to Zimmerman's head may also help corroborate that story. BUT- Zimmerman still has to tell the story. These things are not enough in themselves to have a jury conclude self-defense without Zimmerman. Zimmerman HAS to testify- or he is lost.

It doesn't matter... I know you hope he is convinced.. I know you've contrived this situation in your head where it's possible that the unlikely happens, but you are only speculating.. He could get on the stand and do a marvelous job and walk out a free man.. You speculate that he gets up there and the prosecution crosses him up and makes him look dishonest to the jury, that may happen, but until it does, this is only speculative..

I swear to God I think you are illiterate.

TOAST!

 

[pantherclub]

yes that would seem to sum up your grasp of the English language

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

yes that would seem to sum up your grasp of the English language

Stop being so racist, he's just speaking GANGSTA.

 

[kentric]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..

But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

 

[kentric]

Question for everyone on both sides: should this trial be televised?

Of course, selfishly, we all want it to be televised because nearly everybody that has contributed to this thread will likely be glued to it. But in the interests of justice, should it be?

Carolina Hustler predicts there will be a riot if Zimmerman walks. I disagree, but one of the reasons some people believe there was a riot after the Rodney King trial was because it was not televised, which gave minorities a belief in a conspiracy outcome. On the other hand, many people believe that had OJ Simpson been convicted, there would have been a riot in part because so many people were watching. So both arguments have been made. What should be done here?

I'd love for it to be televised if they could ensure that the jurors were not included in the broadcast. However, I don't believe it would have a material impact on any riot as any potential rioters are either predisposed toward's Z's guilt and will feel all his statements are lies and there is a big conspiracy or, they won't watch it at all. I'd say the majority of rioters are opportunists looking for a free TV rather than those who view the event as a moral imperative.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..

But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

well he failed to mention that he told the dispatch that he would prefer the cops to call him when they arrive and he would tell them where he is...instead ,in the video , he says he was walking back to his truck top meet the cops ,then he was attacked.My point is thats before the fight and should have remembered that,im sure the prosecutor will.It may not sound like much but it will add up when they start adding up other discrepancies in his several interviews.This case hinges on whether he was following treyvon around with intent or just happened to run into him as he was going to his truck or not....IMO. Then it will be about trying to figure out who initiated the confrontation.

 

[tdoss]

Anyone feel like rioting if Zimmerman gets convicted?

How about a flash mob or something?

 

[tdoss]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between.. But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

well he failed to mention that he told the dispatch that he would prefer the cops to call him when they arrive and he would tell them where he is...instead ,in the video , he says he was walking back to his truck top meet the cops ,then he was attacked.My point is thats before the fight and should have remembered that,im sure the prosecutor will.It may not sound like much but it will add up when they start adding up other discrepancies in his several interviews.This case hinges on whether he was following treyvon around with intent or just happened to run into him as he was going to his truck or not....IMO. Then it will be about trying to figure out who initiated the confrontation.

"Following with intent"...is that legalese?How on Earth would anyone prove intent? Even if he said, "Yep...I followed him."?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

well he failed to mention that he told the dispatch that he would prefer the cops to call him when they arrive and he would tell them where he is...instead ,in the video , he says he was walking back to his truck top meet the cops ,then he was attacked.My point is thats before the fight and should have remembered that,im sure the prosecutor will.It may not sound like much but it will add up when they start adding up other discrepancies in his several interviews.This case hinges on whether he was following treyvon around with intent or just happened to run into him as he was going to his truck or not....IMO. Then it will be about trying to figure out who initiated the confrontation.

"Following with intent"...is that legalese?How on Earth would anyone prove intent? Even if he said, "Yep...I followed him."?

thats mine haha....if im following someone while armed with a gun because these punks always get away ,then i call that following with intent

 

[tdoss]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

well he failed to mention that he told the dispatch that he would prefer the cops to call him when they arrive and he would tell them where he is...instead ,in the video , he says he was walking back to his truck top meet the cops ,then he was attacked.My point is thats before the fight and should have remembered that,im sure the prosecutor will.It may not sound like much but it will add up when they start adding up other discrepancies in his several interviews.This case hinges on whether he was following treyvon around with intent or just happened to run into him as he was going to his truck or not....IMO. Then it will be about trying to figure out who initiated the confrontation.

"Following with intent"...is that legalese?How on Earth would anyone prove intent? Even if he said, "Yep...I followed him."?

thats mine haha....if im following someone while armed with a gun because these punks always get away ,then i call that following with intent

Brandishing...maybe.I could follow a pretty chick down an aisle and just because I'm armed with a penis...it doesn't mean I have any intent to rape until I brandish it...then we've got a problem.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Seriously? Would that be your advice to him?

if they show him on a video saying something i would think saying i dont recall would seem kind of silly

It seemed to me that there were things he didn't fully remember during the video.. Do you remember every detail of every situation? Most fights I've been in, I remember the beginning and the end, and only a few details in between..But the video won't be in court, so whats the difference? Look silly to who?

You're correct in that there were several points of Z's walkthrough where he indicated he wasn't sure exactly what happened.

well he failed to mention that he told the dispatch that he would prefer the cops to call him when they arrive and he would tell them where he is...instead ,in the video , he says he was walking back to his truck top meet the cops ,then he was attacked.My point is thats before the fight and should have remembered that,im sure the prosecutor will.It may not sound like much but it will add up when they start adding up other discrepancies in his several interviews.This case hinges on whether he was following treyvon around with intent or just happened to run into him as he was going to his truck or not....IMO. Then it will be about trying to figure out who initiated the confrontation.

"Following with intent"...is that legalese?How on Earth would anyone prove intent? Even if he said, "Yep...I followed him."?

thats mine haha....if im following someone while armed with a gun because these punks always get away ,then i call that following with intent

Brandishing...maybe.I could follow a pretty chick down an aisle and just because I'm armed with a penis...it doesn't mean I have any intent to rape until I brandish it...then we've got a problem.

it might be if in your head they always get away lol

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The prosecution's response to the "motion for sanctions against Florida prosecutors for withholding information favorable to the defense" is laughable at best, I can't believe a lawyer actually wrote this garbage. It reads like something I would find in the FFA drunk thread.