Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

Just an fyi, the judge ruled today any exculpatory statements Zimmerman previously made cannot be introduced by Defense during the trial, only if the State mentions them (which they won't). So Z will need to take the stand to reiterate those statements and allow State to cross-examine.

But there is still other evidence which establishes self-defense. The bar is not high, it just requires some evidence to establish it, and there is plenty outside of any statements Zimmerman has made.

 

[timschochet]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But thats not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but its the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

Just an fyi, the judge ruled today any exculpatory statements Zimmerman previously made cannot be introduced by Defense during the trial, only if the State mentions them (which they won't). So Z will need to take the stand to reiterate those statements and allow State to cross-examine.

But there is still other evidence which establishes self-defense. The bar is not high, it just requires some evidence to establish it, and there is plenty outside of any statements Zimmerman has made.

Without Zimmermans statement it's not nearly enough. He must testify.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

Just an fyi, the judge ruled today any exculpatory statements Zimmerman previously made cannot be introduced by Defense during the trial, only if the State mentions them (which they won't). So Z will need to take the stand to reiterate those statements and allow State to cross-examine.

But there is still other evidence which establishes self-defense. The bar is not high, it just requires some evidence to establish it, and there is plenty outside of any statements Zimmerman has made.

I believe (but am not sure) that the idea is that the prosecution has in their possession a large number of statements from Zimmerman or other information about Zimmerman that if read with no context and no explanation from Zimmerman could paint him in a very bad light.

So by getting the judge to rule as they did they'll probably feel like they've guaranteed that they'll have a chance to see Zimmerman take the stand and by extension that they'll have an opportunity to x-examine him. Which is probably what they were hoping for.

 

[jon_mx]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

Just an fyi, the judge ruled today any exculpatory statements Zimmerman previously made cannot be introduced by Defense during the trial, only if the State mentions them (which they won't). So Z will need to take the stand to reiterate those statements and allow State to cross-examine.

But there is still other evidence which establishes self-defense. The bar is not high, it just requires some evidence to establish it, and there is plenty outside of any statements Zimmerman has made.

How does just the fact that one guy has lacerations and another has been shot and killed show that it was self-defense without context? Even if a witness testified that they saw Trayvon on top, that doesn't show necessarily the context of the altercation either. If my life was on the line, I wouldn't want the jury to have to piece together whether I was defending myself or not. The other guy is dead. Testify and own the facts.

 

[pantherclub]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

as we have said all along and what numerous legal minds have suggested is that Zimmerman has to take the stand The whole case will come down to his testimony.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Would it make sense to have GZ yell for help at the spot that he says he did and record it in that 911 apt to see if it could be GZ? Technology is so advanced these days that maybe that would help.

Sure, and I bet we can find a few volunteers in this thread to kneel over him and punch him in the nose while he's screaming.

 

[bigbottom]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

 

[[icon]]

This thread title cracks me up....

Florida "boy"?

More like Florida "Boyyyyeeeeee!"

 

[timschochet]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

 

[kentric]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Can't wait until they ask Z whether he ordered a Code Red.

 

[timschochet]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Can't wait until they ask Z whether he ordered a Code Red.

That would be outstanding.

ZIMMERMAN: You want me on that Neighborhood Watch. You NEED me on that Neighborhood Watch!

 

[jon_mx]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Unlike you Tim, I am not rooting for anyone. I am rooting for our justice system to be fair. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was anything other than self-defense, thus it is not right that it is even going to trail. The politically correct pressure is the only reason charges were ever filed and the prosecution than grossly overstepped by going for Murder 2. The races of the victim or defendant should play no role, but yet it does for you.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

I think that is easy for defense to show (his injuries and eyewitness testimony regarding M on top), plus the wet and grassy back on Z, the grass stains on M's knees showing he was kneeling on the grass. What the prosecution will most likely have to prove is that Z had a reasonable escape and did not take it. They'll have to prove that forensics show there was distance between Z and M when the shot was fired +trajectory +etc...and that Z could have escaped but chose to shoot M instead. However, I think the contact mark on M's clothing from the gunshot pretty much negates anything the prosecution could come up with.

 

[jon_mx]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[pantherclub]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

seriously?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Would it make sense to have GZ yell for help at the spot that he says he did and record it in that 911 apt to see if it could be GZ? Technology is so advanced these days that maybe that would help.

Sure, and I bet we can find a few volunteers in this thread to kneel over him and punch him in the nose while he's screaming.

I couldnt do it...one punch and all you would hear is Zimm snoring haha

 

[Christo]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

 

[bigbottom]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

How does this evidence establish what Zimmerman believed at the time? It may go to whether the belief was reasonable, but I don't think it establishes his state of mind.

 

[pantherclub]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

 

[kentric]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Can't wait until they ask Z whether he ordered a Code Red.

That would be outstanding.

ZIMMERMAN: You want me on that Neighborhood Watch. You NEED me on that Neighborhood Watch!

LMAO

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

How many murder trials have you been at trial for?

 

[The Commish]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.

Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Unlike you Tim, I am not rooting for anyone. I am rooting for our justice system to be fair. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was anything other than self-defense, thus it is not right that it is even going to trail. The politically correct pressure is the only reason charges were ever filed and the prosecution than grossly overstepped by going for Murder 2. The races of the victim or defendant should play no role, but yet it does for you.

And you base this on what you've heard in the media, correct? If you're really interested in the justice system being fair, it's right on track. I'm not sure what your problem is with it other than the media hasn't given you enough information for you to personally justify it going to court. That's a house built on the sand if I've ever seen one.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

 

[Toad_1234]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I assumed he was talking to everyone.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

I doubt it. But Christo can clarify.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

I doubt it. But Christo can clarify.

well ive been taken to court for assault and battery many times,mostly to pay for hospital bills it seemed.. Never arrested at the scene but the person and or persons would go to the court house and file charges which i would then get summoned to court. Every time i HAD to testify simply because it was there word against mine.Nobody in that court room knew what happened but me and the other guy,and witnesses of course. So ya i believe Zimm has to tell his side of the events that night to have any chance of winning. Lokk at how much doubt there is in just this one thread . Some think zimms innocent and some dont...the jury will be no different.

 

[jon_mx]

There is a huge difference between a criminal case and a civil case. HTH

 

[jon_mx]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Unlike you Tim, I am not rooting for anyone. I am rooting for our justice system to be fair. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was anything other than self-defense, thus it is not right that it is even going to trail. The politically correct pressure is the only reason charges were ever filed and the prosecution than grossly overstepped by going for Murder 2. The races of the victim or defendant should play no role, but yet it does for you.

And you base this on what you've heard in the media, correct? If you're really interested in the justice system being fair, it's right on track. I'm not sure what your problem is with it other than the media hasn't given you enough information for you to personally justify it going to court. That's a house built on the sand if I've ever seen one.

I do believe that the vast majority of evidence in this case has been made public. If there is significantly more evidence which shows otherwise, I will gladly admit I am wrong. I hope for hmthe sake of Justice I am wrong. But if the evidence is mostly out there, this is a bull#### case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

Yes. Z was legally carrying a concealed weapon. If at any point M were to see the weapon it could be a weapon he could use against Z if he is able to take it from him.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

Yes. Z was legally carrying a concealed weapon. If at any point M were to see the weapon it could be a weapon he could use against Z if he is able to take it from him.

So what's to stop anybody carrying a concealed weapon from instigating altercations if they can use the gun without recourse if losing a fist fight?

 

[Christo]

There is a huge difference between a criminal case and a civil case. HTH

 

[The Commish]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

There aren't "lots of ways". Jon's argument simply doesn't fly.Jon (and others) who are rooting for an acquittal don't want Zimmerman to testify, because if he does, he may not survive the cross-examination.

From a purely spectator's viewpoint, the fact that Zimmerman has to testify is awesome! What key dramatic ingredient always seems to be missing in most murder trials, from OJ Simpson to Casey Anthony? It's the prosecution grilling the accused. It's Perry Mason or Sam Waterston pointing their finger at the guy on trial and asking biting questions. We never see it in real trials because the defense attorneys are always too smart to put their client on the stand. But this time they will have to.

Unlike you Tim, I am not rooting for anyone. I am rooting for our justice system to be fair. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was anything other than self-defense, thus it is not right that it is even going to trail. The politically correct pressure is the only reason charges were ever filed and the prosecution than grossly overstepped by going for Murder 2. The races of the victim or defendant should play no role, but yet it does for you.

And you base this on what you've heard in the media, correct? If you're really interested in the justice system being fair, it's right on track. I'm not sure what your problem is with it other than the media hasn't given you enough information for you to personally justify it going to court. That's a house built on the sand if I've ever seen one.

I do believe that the vast majority of evidence in this case has been made public. If there is significantly more evidence which shows otherwise, I will gladly admit I am wrong. I hope for hmthe sake of Justice I am wrong. But if the evidence is mostly out there, this is a bull#### case.

You're really no different than those hoping he fries. This "if" game you guys partake in is laughable...would be comical if it weren't so sad. "For the sake of Justice" how about letting it take it's course and seeing what happens? I doubt it will matter much because somehow you've made a decision already (without allowing the justice process to complete) so I'm really confused on whether you really want to see justice take it's course or if you're just blowing smoke again.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

Yes. Z was legally carrying a concealed weapon. If at any point M were to see the weapon it could be a weapon he could use against Z if he is able to take it from him.

So what's to stop anybody carrying a concealed weapon from instigating altercations if they can use the gun without recourse if losing a fist fight?

The conditions surrounding justifiable use of deadly force.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Hey zimmy...just remember...The more elaborate the story, the bigger the lie

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

Yes. Z was legally carrying a concealed weapon. If at any point M were to see the weapon it could be a weapon he could use against Z if he is able to take it from him.

So what's to stop anybody carrying a concealed weapon from instigating altercations if they can use the gun without recourse if losing a fist fight?

The conditions surrounding justifiable use of deadly force.

So the presence of a gun by one person when losing a fist fight does or does not cause the gun holding party reason to fear for his life?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It is all speculative at this point. There are still lots of ways the defense can establish self defense without Zimmerman's testimony. It is not an absolute must do at this point, which is what many are contending.

I haven't been following the thread, so perhaps this has already been addressed, but isn't the central element at issue in a self-defense claim whether or not the person reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? If so, what are the "lots of ways" the defense could establish what Zimmerman reasonably believed in that moment apart from his testimony?

Once Zimmerman establishes enough evidence of an affirmative claim of self-defense, Zimmerman just has to establish reasonable doubt. The apparent facts in the case establish this without testimony, IMHO.

1. There was a physical fight, which it seems that Martin was winning and punching Zimmerman in the face.

2. Zimmerman sustained injuries from the fight, Martin appeared untouched outside of the gun wound.

3. The two did not know each other, so there is a level of uncertainty of how dangerous the other participant was.

4. There was a gun present, which could reasonably be considered a deadly in this situation.

I am not sure what more Zimmerman's testimony would add to this. All that can be established without Zimmerman speaking a word, and the standard will be it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if you have a gun, and are getting beat up, you can use the gun to kill the guy, because the fact that you have a gun escalates the situation to make you fear for your life from your own gun?

Yes. Z was legally carrying a concealed weapon. If at any point M were to see the weapon it could be a weapon he could use against Z if he is able to take it from him.

So what's to stop anybody carrying a concealed weapon from instigating altercations if they can use the gun without recourse if losing a fist fight?

The conditions surrounding justifiable use of deadly force.

So the presence of a gun by one person when losing a fist fight does or does not cause the gun holding party reason to fear for his life?

Does he have a reasonable escape? There are other conditions a la forcible felony, it's not as cut and dry as you are trying to portray it.

You can lookup CCW stats, what you're suggesting rarely ever happens.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Questions to the lawyers:

Didn't Zimmerman's lawyer state they are pleading self-defense or does someone have to say it during the trial.

When the police are asked why they did not arrest him at the scene, would they not cite self-defense?

Tim - rooting, really? you can be a world-class tool when you want to.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Anyone know if there is a good blog, website or email subscription out there that will give me daily updates regarding this trial?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyone know if there is a good blog, website or email subscription out there that will give me daily updates regarding this trial?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2441378-Official-Zimmerman-Jury-Trial-Thread

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Anyone know if there is a good blog, website or email subscription out there that will give me daily updates regarding this trial?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2441378-Official-Zimmerman-Jury-Trial-Thread

Thanks. Now why cant we do a separate thread like that in here for just the trial minus the opinions and arguing?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyone know if there is a good blog, website or email subscription out there that will give me daily updates regarding this trial?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2441378-Official-Zimmerman-Jury-Trial-Thread

Thanks. Now why cant we do a separate thread like that in here for just the trial minus the opinions and arguing?

We don't have the manners/discipline.

 

[Lutherman2112]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

How many murder trials have you been at trial for?

He's really not that kind of lawyer.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Did they convict the Hispanic guy of killing the black guy yet? Some people on this board would call that a win-win.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyone know if there is a good blog, website or email subscription out there that will give me daily updates regarding this trial?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2441378-Official-Zimmerman-Jury-Trial-Thread

I can smell the racists just by looking at that link.

You are right, there are more pro-Martin posters in that thread than this one.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

I doubt it. But Christo can clarify.

well ive been taken to court for assault and battery many times,mostly to pay for hospital bills it seemed.. Never arrested at the scene but the person and or persons would go to the court house and file charges which i would then get summoned to court. Every time i HAD to testify simply because it was there word against mine.Nobody in that court room knew what happened but me and the other guy,and witnesses of course. So ya i believe Zimm has to tell his side of the events that night to have any chance of winning. Lokk at how much doubt there is in just this one thread . Some think zimms innocent and some dont...the jury will be no different.

You must not have had a lawyer. I've been to court for assualt charges as well. 3 times. The first time, I was 19, I had a public defender, I got on the stand, I was convicted and had to pay. The last 2 times, I had a lawyer, I never said a word in court, and it was dismissed..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

 

[pantherclub]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that (this guy he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

sweet baby Jesus