Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

If he's the sort of guy who follows suspects when instructed not to by the police, the sort of guy who complains that these "punks" always get away, I am inclined much more to think of him as a wannabe viligante, and will consequently have a much more difficult time accepting his story that he was walking back to his truck when Martin jumped him from behind. Personally, I think that story's a load of crap. The fact that Zimmerman' disobeys police gives me insight into his personality.

But that's just me.

It was neither the police or an order. At best it was a suggestion by an operator. I understand you have developed a heavy biased against Zimmerman, but you should fairly represent the facts.

I disagree with your interpretation of the facts.

The definition of the statement on it's own disagrees with you.. He was not "told to do" anything.. It wasn't an order.. It wasn't a request, It was a statement..

You can argue this in several different ways, but in the end you keep making the same point over and over. I don't agree with you. I doubt the jury will either. What more is to be said? We'll have to wait and see who turns out to be right about this.

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

 

[Christo]

Seems I've broken Christo. I keep pointing out where he's wrong and he can't even try to defend his points anymore.

:confirmed:

Explain to the crowd what the doctrine of apparent authority is and we'll let them decide if you're talking out your butt.

 

[Neofight]

I'm sure glad Christo is done with Tim.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Who in this thread own`s a gun or are pro NRA?

I dont own a gun. Im not pro NRA.

 

[Christo]

I don't even understand that. Obstruction of a police officer in the field has nothing to do with not following a suggestionby a non-911 operator.

Christo, you have plenty of courtroom experience. I know this whole "suggestion" argument is interesting and works for our internet discussion here, but do you really think it would fly in court? I have no courtroom experience, but I am skeptical that any jury would accept this distinction. I think they're going to believe that Zimmerman disobeyed an instruction, no't a suggestion, and I don't think they're going to care that the operator was not a 911 operator. I think these points are both meaningless.

Tim, if many people here accept this distinction, why wouldn't at least a few of the jurors? I realize the average FFA intelligance and reason levels are probably a little higher than the average juror, but it's a mistake to keep assuming the jury will be comprised of primarily idiots who will be easily and consistantly swayed by emotion.

I'm actually siding with Christo here. Sort of. The clear language of the operator is neither an instruction nor a suggestion. If I get up to grab my wife a beer and she says "I don't need you to do that," I wouldn't take that as suggesting and instructing that I don't grab her a beer. It's too ambiguous. It could mean that she does want me to grab her a beer, but doesn't want to trouble me with doing it. It definitely does not mean "Don't grab me a beer."

It's a lawyerly distinction. It may have merit on an internet forum, or in parlor conversation. It won't fly at trial, IMO.

If there's any place where lawyerly distinctions are likely to have merit, it's in a court of law.

To a judge, yeah. Doesn't play nearly as well to a jury.

This has been my point all along.

You have a lot of experience with juries, huh?

I've got common sense on my side. Argue this issue all you want in this forum, but I'll bet even YOU would never attempt it at trial. It's total #### and you know it.

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

 

[timschochet]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

I think they'll simply note what was said in the call and let the jury draw their own conclusion. But we'll see.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim, if many people here accept this distinction, why wouldn't at least a few of the jurors? I realize the average FFA intelligance and reason levels are probably a little higher than the average juror, but it's a mistake to keep assuming the jury will be comprised of primarily idiots who will be easily and consistantly swayed by emotion.

I'm actually siding with Christo here. Sort of. The clear language of the operator is neither an instruction nor a suggestion. If I get up to grab my wife a beer and she says "I don't need you to do that," I wouldn't take that as suggesting and instructing that I don't grab her a beer. It's too ambiguous. It could mean that she does want me to grab her a beer, but doesn't want to trouble me with doing it. It definitely does not mean "Don't grab me a beer."

It's a lawyerly distinction. It may have merit on an internet forum, or in parlor conversation. It won't fly at trial, IMO.

If there's any place where lawyerly distinctions are likely to have merit, it's in a court of law.

To a judge, yeah. Doesn't play nearly as well to a jury.

This has been my point all along.

You have a lot of experience with juries, huh?

I've got common sense on my side. Argue this issue all you want in this forum, but I'll bet even YOU would never attempt it at trial. It's total #### and you know it.

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Tim just doesn't get it..

 

[Christo]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

I think they'll simply note what was said in the call and let the jury draw their own conclusion. But we'll see.

Just plant the seed, huh?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

I think they'll simply note what was said in the call and let the jury draw their own conclusion. But we'll see.

They've already implied it in the affidavit.. It's open to contention..

 

[Christo]

Tim, if many people here accept this distinction, why wouldn't at least a few of the jurors? I realize the average FFA intelligance and reason levels are probably a little higher than the average juror, but it's a mistake to keep assuming the jury will be comprised of primarily idiots who will be easily and consistantly swayed by emotion.

I'm actually siding with Christo here. Sort of. The clear language of the operator is neither an instruction nor a suggestion. If I get up to grab my wife a beer and she says "I don't need you to do that," I wouldn't take that as suggesting and instructing that I don't grab her a beer. It's too ambiguous. It could mean that she does want me to grab her a beer, but doesn't want to trouble me with doing it. It definitely does not mean "Don't grab me a beer."

It's a lawyerly distinction. It may have merit on an internet forum, or in parlor conversation. It won't fly at trial, IMO.

If there's any place where lawyerly distinctions are likely to have merit, it's in a court of law.

To a judge, yeah. Doesn't play nearly as well to a jury.

This has been my point all along.

You have a lot of experience with juries, huh?

I've got common sense on my side. Argue this issue all you want in this forum, but I'll bet even YOU would never attempt it at trial. It's total #### and you know it.

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Tim just doesn't get it..

He thinks they'll just note what was said and move on. Of course they won't claim that he didn't follow the suggestion, that he continued to follow Martin and that he then confronted Martin--even though they have no evidence to support this.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

 

[timschochet]

He thinks they'll just note what was said and move on. Of course they won't claim that he didn't follow the suggestion, that he continued to follow Martin and that he then confronted Martin--even though they have no evidence to support this.

I believe that the defense will contest whether or not Zimmerman followed the "instruction/suggestion". I believe that the defense will argue that he did. I don't believe the question of whether or not it was a suggestion or instruction will ever come up, because IMO the defense would lose that argument, and making it will not help their case, only hurt it. That is my firm opinion as a layman, and I'm willing to put money on it. Any takers?

 

[dparker713]

Seems I've broken Christo. I keep pointing out where he's wrong and he can't even try to defend his points anymore.

:confirmed:

Explain to the crowd what the doctrine of apparent authority is and we'll let them decide if you're talking out your butt.

An agent (operator) creates an agency between a 3rd party (caller) and the principle (police) because the 3rd party relies upon the agent.Also fits inherent authority, and maybe implied.

 

[timschochet]

Seems I've broken Christo. I keep pointing out where he's wrong and he can't even try to defend his points anymore.

:confirmed:

Explain to the crowd what the doctrine of apparent authority is and we'll let them decide if you're talking out your butt.

An agent (operator) creates an agency between a 3rd party (caller) and the principle (police) because the 3rd party relies upon the agent.Also fits inherent authority, and maybe implied.

IT'S NOT EVEN RELEVANT!The question of whether or not Zimmerman had the legal obligation to obey the 911 instruction has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

 

[dparker713]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

Its ambigious. Never spent any time in the south, eh?

 

[timschochet]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

Its ambigious. Never spent any time in the south, eh?

It's ambiguous? You're the prosecutor and that's what you're going to say? Zimmerman should have know that this ambiguous statement required him to not follow Martin?And I've lived in North and South Carolina.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

 

[timschochet]

I'm sure glad Christo is done with Tim.

Christo loves second and third helpings. He's never really done.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

 

[dparker713]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

Its ambigious. Never spent any time in the south, eh?

It's ambiguous? You're the prosecutor and that's what you're going to say? Zimmerman should have know that this ambiguous statement required him to not follow Martin?And I've lived in North and South Carolina.

No, if Im the prosecutor Im saying the operator was merely speaking in a polite manner, as is the custom of many southerners

 

[dparker713]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

The affidavit is irrelevant?

 

[timschochet]

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

It won't even be a question unless the defense brings it up. I say they won't. But nobody, not even Christo, wants to put money on it.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

That is an issue of law not fact.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

The affidavit is irrelevant?

You think it's evidence?

 

[dparker713]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

That is an issue of law not fact.

No, whether the statement was an instruction or a suggestion is an issue of fact. If it was an instruction, whether Z's was required to follow said instruction is an issue of law.

 

[Christo]

The problem with your viewpoint is it already presupposes that he didnt obey the suggestion. This is already murky. Combine murky facts with a murky suggestion and I don't see how you don't have reasonable doubt regarding this issue. To make your character assumption based on that is just strange. Especially when you claim to be a guy that likes to constantly reexamine.

Actually I haven't made this supposition at all. There's a very real question in my mind as to whether or not he obeyed the instruction. He may very well have, in which case this whole point is moot. I simply don't know. If the defense makes the argument that Zimmerman actually followed the instruction, that may be a strong argument. (In fact, I'm betting that's just what Zimmerman will testify to, in which case it then becomes a question of whether or not the prosecution has any evidence to contradict him.)I just don't buy this argument that the 911 operator is not a real authority, and that the instruction was actually a suggestion. I just think it's real weak. If the defense attorney is forced to use this argument in order to justify Zimmerman having ignored the operator, he's already lost the point, IMO, if not the whole case.

How can there be a question? The was no instruction.

That won't be the defense's argument.

It will certainly be part of it if the prosecution pushes the issue.

The prosecution already pushed the issue in the affidavit. I say the defense will not argue at trial that it was a suggestion and not an instruction. Shall we put money on it?

What they did in the affidavit is irrelevant. If the prosecution argues at trial that it was an instruction that Zimmerman was required to follow the defense will counter the argument.

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

That is an issue of law not fact.

No, whether the statement was an instruction or a suggestion is an issue of fact. If it was an instruction, whether Z's was required to follow said instruction is an issue of law.

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

 

[timschochet]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

 

[TexanFan02]

Christo must have been worried about Carolina Hustler catching him in post count.

 

[renesauz]

I've got common sense on my side. Argue this issue all you want in this forum, but I'll bet even YOU would never attempt it at trial. It's total #### and you know it.

Tim, apparently, this is far from "common sense", as numerous people in this thread disagree with the assertion that that statement was an "order".Yes....Z should have listened to the suggestion, but it's a huge stretch to characterize this as disobeying the police. Yes...the jury may look on Z not listening (if indeed he didn't...I'm not sure that's true) in a negative light, but it's only one small piece. Anyone with any sense can see that not following this AT BEST ambiguous "order" is a long way from proving guilt here. IE: It really wouldn't mean much even if you were right.

 

[dparker713]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Does he know that? Would a reasonable person know that?

 

[renesauz]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

I think they'll simply note what was said in the call and let the jury draw their own conclusion. But we'll see.

I doubt it. If the prosecution tries to make any deal out of it at all, I would expect the defense to counter.IN the end, it might not matter, because the judge may not leave this interpretation up to the jury. He might decide.

 

[Christo]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

 

[Christo]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Does he know that? Would a reasonable person know that?

It doesn't matter. Not following a suggestion you aren't required to follow has no legal significance.

 

[renesauz]

And it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was an instruction or a suggestion.

If so, I would bet they are as torn on it as we are...and move on to more important/relevent issues of the case, as we should

 

[timschochet]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Sorry, you just don't get it. You keep harping on the legal aspect. Zimmerman is not being charged with disobeying the 911 operator, so the legal aspect of this is absolutely irrelevant. It only matters in terms of Zimmerman's credibility.

 

[Christo]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

I think they'll simply note what was said in the call and let the jury draw their own conclusion. But we'll see.

I doubt it. If the prosecution tries to make any deal out of it at all, I would expect the defense to counter.IN the end, it might not matter, because the judge may not leave this interpretation up to the jury. He might decide.

You're damn right he will.

 

[TexanFan02]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Christo vs Tim. My work here is done.

 

[renesauz]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

To undermine Z's credibility to the point where the jury ignores his story altogether, they will have to show he's a liar. Not just a hothead, nor just a vigilante...they have to show him to be lying about key parts of the story.

 

[Christo]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Sorry, you just don't get it. You keep harping on the legal aspect. Zimmerman is not being charged with disobeying the 911 operator, so the legal aspect of this is absolutely irrelevant. It only matters in terms of Zimmerman's credibility.

You keep saying it goes to his credibility. How does it go to his credibility? Why does it go to his credibility? How does doing something you are by law allowed to do go to a person's credibility????????????????????????????????????HOW?

 

[Christo]

WHY?

 

[Christo]

Tell me.

 

[timschochet]

I've got common sense on my side. Argue this issue all you want in this forum, but I'll bet even YOU would never attempt it at trial. It's total #### and you know it.

Tim, apparently, this is far from "common sense", as numerous people in this thread disagree with the assertion that that statement was an "order".Yes....Z should have listened to the suggestion, but it's a huge stretch to characterize this as disobeying the police. Yes...the jury may look on Z not listening (if indeed he didn't...I'm not sure that's true) in a negative light, but it's only one small piece. Anyone with any sense can see that not following this AT BEST ambiguous "order" is a long way from proving guilt here. IE: It really wouldn't mean much even if you were right.

I 100% agree with bolded. In the greater scheme of things, it won't make much difference. If I had to weigh important issues on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the greatest weight, here's what they would be:Whether or not Zimmerman obeyed the instruction/suggestion: 3

Zimmerman's broken nose: 5

Evidence of other Zimmerman injuries: 5

Whether or not the prosecution has evidence to contradict Zimmerman's testimony: 8

Zimmerman's believability on the witness stand: 10+.

You see? It's the least significant thing on this list. BUT- if the defense actually attempts that cockamanie argument that it's a "suggestion", not an "instruction", and that the 911 operator wasn't in any authority, that would only not fly, it might even give this whole issue greater significance. Which is why the defense won't do it.

 

[jon_mx]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Sorry, you just don't get it. You keep harping on the legal aspect. Zimmerman is not being charged with disobeying the 911 operator, so the legal aspect of this is absolutely irrelevant. It only matters in terms of Zimmerman's credibility.

You keep saying it goes to his credibility. How does it go to his credibility? Why does it go to his credibility? How does doing something you are by law allowed to do go to a person's credibility????????????????????????????????????HOW?

He shot a black child. He has no credibility. This is just Tim's latest rationalization of his bias. First it was the broken nose thing, but now that there seems to be medical records, Tim is clinging on to the next item. There is no way I would want Tim on my jury if I was a white person who allegedly did something to a black person.

 

[renesauz]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.

All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Sorry, you just don't get it. You keep harping on the legal aspect. Zimmerman is not being charged with disobeying the 911 operator, so the legal aspect of this is absolutely irrelevant. It only matters in terms of Zimmerman's credibility.

Tim, this last bolded statement is correct. The problem is that you're dramatically overstating your point to a level that makes no sense. We can agree it matters to his credibility, but it's a very long way from completely destroying that credibility...it's just one relatively small piece of the picture. What Christo is saying is that since the "order" or "suggestion" carries no force of law behind it, it's almost irrelevant and any emphasis on this by the prosecution is likely to be met with stiff and swift resistance...a resistance which would probably be supported fully by the judge.

 

[renesauz]

What does it matter whether it was an instruction or suggestion if he wasn't required to follow it?

Christo doesn't get it. As a matter a fact, this has been my point all along. Legally, as best I understand, he wasn't required to follow it. But that is irrelevant. What's important is this: if Zimmerman chose not to follow it, he comes off like a vigilante dooshbag and that's how the jury will see him, and they may not believe his tale of self-defense. And that's why it's important. Now, is it as important as the broken nose or other injuries? Hardly. Those are much more important IMO. But this is important nonetheless.All of these issues go toward Zimmerman's credibility on the stand. And that's really what this trial will be all about IMO. It certainly won't be about whether or not what the 911 operator said was an instruction or a suggestion. If it becomes about that, Zimmerman's already lost, because the jury will never buy it. I think the defense is smart enough to realize this, and they'll never argue the point. What they'll do instead is argue that Zimmerman DID follow the instruction/suggestion. At which point, again, it becomes a matter of who the jury believes. The broken nose evidence will help the jury believe Zimmerman. The comment Zimmerman made about "punks always getting away" will help the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. If the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman did in fact not do what the 911 "suggested", that will also hurt Zimmerman. But in the end it will come down to Zimmerman's believability on the stand.

OMFG. It's irrelevant that he wasn't required to follow it? He's a vigilante if he doesn't follow a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow? Not following a suggestion that he wasn't required to follow makes him not credible? You are so full of ####.

Christo vs Tim. My work here is done.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim, you would make a terrible juror.