Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[StrikeS2k]

Whatever. You guys can take what I wrote and twist it any way you like. Here's what I know: in any trial that makes the slightest sense at all, Zimmerman needs to testify. And when he does, the prosecution will try to tear him a new #######, and that's what I am waiting for. If he can survive that cross-examination, he deserves to be acquitted. But we'll see if he can survive it, the lying ####er.

If however, jon and others are right and somehow, because of the ####ed up Florida laws, Zimmerman manages to avoid testifying, and he ends up with an acquittal anyhow, then we will have a terrible miscarriage of justice.

So am I rooting for Zimmerman to be forced to testify? You bet your ###. Am I rooting for him to go down? You bet your ###. He's a racist murderer who deserves to be put away. I'm hoping for it.

ETA- I may have had a little too much to drink tonight. I may look differently at this in the morning...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Whatever. You guys can take what I wrote and twist it any way you like. Here's what I know: in any trial that makes the slightest sense at all, Zimmerman needs to testify. And when he does, the prosecution will try to tear him a new #######, and that's what I am waiting for. If he can survive that cross-examination, he deserves to be acquitted. But we'll see if he can survive it, the lying ####er.

If however, jon and others are right and somehow, because of the ####ed up Florida laws, Zimmerman manages to avoid testifying, and he ends up with an acquittal anyhow, then we will have a terrible miscarriage of justice.

So am I rooting for Zimmerman to be forced to testify? You bet your ###. Am I rooting for him to go down? You bet your ###. He's a racist murderer who deserves to be put away. I'm hoping for it.

ETA- I may have had a little too much to drink tonight. I may look differently at this in the morning...

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Anger is like herpes, you should share it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Hung-Jury/Mistrial? (did I phrase this right?)

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of Manslaughter

Y/N/Jury does not have the option

Zimmerman takes the stand

Y/N

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

Dee-Dee (Martin's girlfriend) takes the stand

Y/N

Martin's drug use is brought up at trial

Y/N

Martin's Tox report (THC) the night he was killed is brought up at trial

Y/N

Drug/Pharma expert takes the stand

Y/N

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Hung-Jury/Mistrial? (did I phrase this right?)

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of Manslaughter

Y/N/Jury does not have the option

Zimmerman takes the stand

Y/N

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

Dee-Dee (Martin's girlfriend) takes the stand

Y/N

Martin's drug use is brought up at trial

Y/N

Martin's Tox report (THC) the night he was killed is brought up at trial

Y/N

Drug/Pharma expert takes the stand

Y/N

My answers

 

[pittstownkiller]

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

Do you really think it's incorrect or bad taste or rude of me to state that there are rooting interests in this thread? I'm not ashamed of admitting that I am rooting for the prosecution, since I believe Zimmerman was a murderer. That doesn't mean I don't want to see justice done. There are others here who are rooting for the defense because they strongly believe Zimmerman to be innocent. Pointing this out is no slight on them, IMO.

Yes, I do think it is incorrect, and is in bad taste, but maybe you have a different usage of "rooting" than I do. I am hoping for a fair trail for the accused; nothing more than what would be offered to anyone else. I do not believe that Zimmerman set out to murder anyone that night or any night, he doesn't seem the type, but if he is found guilty by a fair trial then fine. I laugh at you projecting racial bigotry to anyone who has a differing view and interpreting their vocalized viewpoint as "rooting".

well one of the biggest issues was the fact that this shooting almost got swept under the rug ...i was only rooting for zimmerman to answer for this ...that would have been just as unjust if he wasnt even arrested . Let him have his day in court .its the least the family of treyvon martin deserved .

Agreed, as long as this is what everyone would have to answer to; justice needs to be applied uniformly.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Whatever. You guys can take what I wrote and twist it any way you like. Here's what I know: in any trial that makes the slightest sense at all, Zimmerman needs to testify. And when he does, the prosecution will try to tear him a new #######, and that's what I am waiting for. If he can survive that cross-examination, he deserves to be acquitted. But we'll see if he can survive it, the lying ####er.

If however, jon and others are right and somehow, because of the ####ed up Florida laws, Zimmerman manages to avoid testifying, and he ends up with an acquittal anyhow, then we will have a terrible miscarriage of justice.

So am I rooting for Zimmerman to be forced to testify? You bet your ###. Am I rooting for him to go down? You bet your ###. He's a racist murderer who deserves to be put away. I'm hoping for it.

ETA- I may have had a little too much to drink tonight. I may look differently at this in the morning...

I hope you are sleeping it off.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.ETA: For Christ's sakes he was wearing a hoodie!

You should stop using your mind to think and just start punching people and bashing their heads against the pavement.

why do i get the feeling that JO JO the clown has been bullied a lot in his life time

Because you've been a bully your whole life and you justify it by assuming everyone is going to be bullied by someone, why not you?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim does not like actual rules. Tim makes up his own rules.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.

So when i respond to people talking about an actual court you bring up public opinion as if that is a valid response why? I guess when you have a certain bias --its clear you want zimmerman to be found guilty-- it is hard to think logical.

As already noted on this thread, it is difficult to separate my bias towards the outrageous claims made by Zimmerman's supporters from Zimmerman himself, but I think it easy to believe that someone who sees trouble everywhere he looks was in fear of his life which seems enough to qualify as a self defense defense.Also, I can and will respond to any post in any way I like within the site's terms of service.

I didn't say you couldn't respond I am just saying it isn't a valid response --do you know the difference??--.

My conclusion logically followed from my premise which was in direct response to your failed rhetorical comment.And assuming that the case is not thrown out before the defense get its turn, I think it will be proven that Zimmerman killed Martin in what, absent a defense would be considered beyond any doubt. That it was a crime in Florida (or just about anywhere else) based only on what Zimmerman has stated (if his justifications were redacted).

Of course his justifications won't be redacted and there will be defense, which is where I have stated numerous times (it has to be getting boring to read by now) that I have trouble seeing how the prosecution can win.

Now a civil case where the burden of proof is presumably more equal, that could be interesting. I wonder if it is enough to just prove that Zimmerman acted recklessly in such a case in Florida? Is Florida a proportion blame state (or whatever the legal term) is so that even if Martin's actions are somewhat to blame for the incident, Zimmerman is still responsible for his share of the actions? These could be interesting question.

As unless both sides are keeping some key piece of evidence secret I don't see how the states creates a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman who seems afraid that his shadow might get away with something wasn't afraid in the fight. Whether he threw or was floored by the first punch; was on top or on the bottom of the scuffle; holding his own, winning, or losing; whether he or Martin or both were screaming for help. None of that seems likely to really matter in a criminal case.

 

[timschochet]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night. But I still think it was murder.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night. But I still think it was murder.

I hope your drunk rants work better with the ladies than they do on the topic of homicides.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Whatever. You guys can take what I wrote and twist it any way you like. Here's what I know: in any trial that makes the slightest sense at all, Zimmerman needs to testify. And when he does, the prosecution will try to tear him a new #######, and that's what I am waiting for. If he can survive that cross-examination, he deserves to be acquitted. But we'll see if he can survive it, the lying ####er.

If however, jon and others are right and somehow, because of the ####ed up Florida laws, Zimmerman manages to avoid testifying, and he ends up with an acquittal anyhow, then we will have a terrible miscarriage of justice.

So am I rooting for Zimmerman to be forced to testify? You bet your ###. Am I rooting for him to go down? You bet your ###. He's a racist murderer who deserves to be put away. I'm hoping for it.

ETA- I may have had a little too much to drink tonight. I may look differently at this in the morning...

I thought you liked Mexicans?

 

[timschochet]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

 

[timschochet]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

We'll find out.

 

[Mark Davis]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

This has already happened per the CNN reports. It's not just in Sanford or when the victim was black, they documented another case of the shooter being black and victim being white where no charges were filed. I get the arguments against the Florida law. That's up to the citizens of Florida to debate and try to enact change. But I don't think the failure to charge Zimmerman originally was an issue of racism and that's what has the media all over this case.

 

[Christo]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Tim's an expert on the 5th Amendment

oops wrong thread

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

We'll find out.

Haven't we already?

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest.

Wrong

It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand

Wrong

But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.

Wrong

But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin

Wrong

but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't [murder Martin].

Right?

 

[timschochet]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.

Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

 

[Christo]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.

Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

I'm talking about your statement about Florida laws being unjust and a defendant being required to take the stand.

 

[jon_mx]

All Zimmerman has to do is to show evidence of a struggle and that will be sufficient grounds to raise the self-defense issue, at which point the prosecution will have the burdon to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must testify to raise the issue and there is a lot of case law which shows he does not. All the defense has to do is show any evidence that suggests it was self-defense. The bar is very low for a defendant

 

[timschochet]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

We'll find out.

Haven't we already?

1.Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest.

Wrong

2. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand

Wrong

3. But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.

Wrong

4.But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin

Wrong

5. but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't [murder Martin].

Right?

1. No, right. Why would the prosecution spend their time trying to argue against self-defense if the defense hasn't yet offered an argument of self-defense? The prosecution will provide evidence of the killing, and then wait for the defense to try to explain it. Now the prosecution may choose to also offer speculative reasons for the killing, but they don't need to do this.

2. No, right. This is my contention. I don't believe the defense can EFFECTIVELY argue self-defense without Zimmerman testifying. Obviously he is not legally compelled to testify, and nowhere did I write that he was. But I think he pretty much has to testify if he wants to be acquitted.

3. No right. See #2.

4. No, right. Again, self-defense is an affirmative defense. The prosecution in this case does not have to prove that Zimmerman was there or that Zimmerman fired a gun and killed Martin. All of that is stipulated by the defense. The prosecution has to prove that it was not self-defense, but they only have to so AFTER the defense has provided evidence that it was self-defense. (At least that's the way it should be in any rational court of the land.)

5. RIght. Glad you agree.

 

[timschochet]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

I'm talking about your statement about Florida laws being unjust and a defendant being required to take the stand.

Then you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me make it more clear: IF the prosecution is competent and IF Zimmerman does not testify and IF Zimmerman is acquitted and IF this is mainly due to some quirk in Florida laws which provides for a much broader interpretation of self-defense than in other states, THEN we will have a miscarriage of justice IMO.

So long as Zimmerman has to testify I will be fine with the verdict either way.

 

[timschochet]

All Zimmerman has to do is to show evidence of a struggle and that will be sufficient grounds to raise the self-defense issue, at which point the prosecution will have the burdon to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must testify to raise the issue and there is a lot of case law which shows he does not. All the defense has to do is show any evidence that suggests it was self-defense. The bar is very low for a defendant

Again, legally this appears to be correct.

But realistically: how would YOU demonstrate even the suggestion of self-defense without Zimmerman's testimony? I don't think you can do it. I think that if you tried, it wouldn't be enough for a jury. We'll see.

 

[jon_mx]

Eye witness accounts if a fight. The screams for help on the 911 tape. Injuries sustained by Zimmerman. All that is more than enough to raise the issue of self-defense without George Zimmerman coming to the stand. Also, why did the police not initially charge Zimmerman. Because the prosecution believed there was enough evidence to show it was self-defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

We'll find out.

Haven't we already?

1.Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest.

Wrong

2. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand

Wrong

3. But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.

Wrong

4.But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin

Wrong

5. but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't [murder Martin].

Right?

1. No, right. Why would the prosecution spend their time trying to argue against self-defense if the defense hasn't yet offered an argument of self-defense? The prosecution will provide evidence of the killing, and then wait for the defense to try to explain it. Now the prosecution may choose to also offer speculative reasons for the killing, but they don't need to do this.2. No, right. This is my contention. I don't believe the defense can EFFECTIVELY argue self-defense without Zimmerman testifying. Obviously he is not legally compelled to testify, and nowhere did I write that he was. But I think he pretty much has to testify if he wants to be acquitted.

3. No right. See #2.

4. No, right. Again, self-defense is an affirmative defense. The prosecution in this case does not have to prove that Zimmerman was there or that Zimmerman fired a gun and killed Martin. All of that is stipulated by the defense. The prosecution has to prove that it was not self-defense, but they only have to so AFTER the defense has provided evidence that it was self-defense. (At least that's the way it should be in any rational court of the land.)

5. RIght. Glad you agree.

Now you are back pedaling and going from absolutes to conditional statements, like you always do...

 

[timschochet]

Eye witness accounts if a fight. The screams for help on the 911 tape. Injuries sustained by Zimmerman. All that is more than enough to raise the issue of self-defense without George Zimmerman coming to the stand. Also, why did the police not initially charge Zimmerman. Because the prosecution believed there was enough evidence to show it was self-defense.

Regarding the bolded, I'm not sure that can be heard by the jury (I don't know.)

Regarding the rest of it- we'll see. I don't think it's enough, but then this MAY go back to Florida law being different than elsewhere- I believe that if you're going to kill someone in self-defense, you need to be in fear for your life. Zimmerman stated that he was in fear for his life, but that information cannot be garnered from any of the other information you listed. Therefore, since there is no other evidence that Zimmerman was in fear for his life, ZImmerman needs to testify to this, or the jurors can't consider it.

HOWEVER- it's been suggested that under Florida law fear for one's life is not required for one to use deadly force in self-defense. If this is true, then Zimmerman needn't testify. But that's what I was referring to in my posts earlier- that would be a miscarriage of justice, since it's a ####### crazy law, if true.

 

[timschochet]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

you were wrong

We'll find out.

Haven't we already?

1.Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest.

Wrong

2. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand

Wrong

3. But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.

Wrong

4.But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin

Wrong

5. but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't [murder Martin].

Right?

1. No, right. Why would the prosecution spend their time trying to argue against self-defense if the defense hasn't yet offered an argument of self-defense? The prosecution will provide evidence of the killing, and then wait for the defense to try to explain it. Now the prosecution may choose to also offer speculative reasons for the killing, but they don't need to do this.2. No, right. This is my contention. I don't believe the defense can EFFECTIVELY argue self-defense without Zimmerman testifying. Obviously he is not legally compelled to testify, and nowhere did I write that he was. But I think he pretty much has to testify if he wants to be acquitted.

3. No right. See #2.

4. No, right. Again, self-defense is an affirmative defense. The prosecution in this case does not have to prove that Zimmerman was there or that Zimmerman fired a gun and killed Martin. All of that is stipulated by the defense. The prosecution has to prove that it was not self-defense, but they only have to so AFTER the defense has provided evidence that it was self-defense. (At least that's the way it should be in any rational court of the land.)

5. RIght. Glad you agree.

Now you are back pedaling and going from absolutes to conditional statements, like you always do...

I'm not backpedaling at all, because none of my statements were ever absolute. All were conditional. And the fact that you wrote "like you always do" only proves that you knew that all along.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, 328 pages and the trial finally begins tomorrow. Is it going to be televised on CNN and the like? I'm still not clear on this. Anyone know?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyhow, 328 pages and the trial finally begins tomorrow. Is it going to be televised on CNN and the like? I'm still not clear on this. Anyone know?

orlandosentinel.com should have a stream at the very least

 

[Christo]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

I'm talking about your statement about Florida laws being unjust and a defendant being required to take the stand.

Then you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me make it more clear: IF the prosecution is competent and IF Zimmerman does not testify and IF Zimmerman is acquitted and IF this is mainly due to some quirk in Florida laws which provides for a much broader interpretation of self-defense than in other states, THEN we will have a miscarriage of justice IMO.

So long as Zimmerman has to testify I will be fine with the verdict either way.

Yeah, what was I thinking? How did I miss all of those implied ifs in what you wrote before?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

I'm talking about your statement about Florida laws being unjust and a defendant being required to take the stand.

Then you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me make it more clear: IF the prosecution is competent and IF Zimmerman does not testify and IF Zimmerman is acquitted and IF this is mainly due to some quirk in Florida laws which provides for a much broader interpretation of self-defense than in other states, THEN we will have a miscarriage of justice IMO.So long as Zimmerman has to testify I will be fine with the verdict either way.

Yeah, what was I thinking? How did I miss all of those implied ifs in what you wrote before?

You can never take anything Tim says at face value, there are always IF's embedded deep in his thought process that you are supposed to be able to read his mind to get to.

 

[Christo]

Eye witness accounts if a fight. The screams for help on the 911 tape. Injuries sustained by Zimmerman. All that is more than enough to raise the issue of self-defense without George Zimmerman coming to the stand. Also, why did the police not initially charge Zimmerman. Because the prosecution believed there was enough evidence to show it was self-defense.

Regarding the bolded, I'm not sure that can be heard by the jury (I don't know.)

Regarding the rest of it- we'll see. I don't think it's enough, but then this MAY go back to Florida law being different than elsewhere- I believe that if you're going to kill someone in self-defense, you need to be in fear for your life. Zimmerman stated that he was in fear for his life, but that information cannot be garnered from any of the other information you listed. Therefore, since there is no other evidence that Zimmerman was in fear for his life, ZImmerman needs to testify to this, or the jurors can't consider it.

HOWEVER- it's been suggested that under Florida law fear for one's life is not required for one to use deadly force in self-defense. If this is true, then Zimmerman needn't testify. But that's what I was referring to in my posts earlier- that would be a miscarriage of justice, since it's a ####### crazy law, if true.

You are allowed to ask the jury to use their common sense.

Jury, you heard testimony that this struggle took place at night. You heard the screams on tape. You heard the witness testify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman striking him. You saw the pictures of the scene where the struggle took place on a concrete side walk. You saw the pictures of the injuries Zimmerman sustained to both his face and the back of his head. I ask you--under those circumstances--pinned under that man--struggling to get free--getting hit repeatedly--bleeding from the nose and back of the head--might it cross your mind that if you didn't do something drastic you might fear that you could sustain even more and worse injuries? At some point, is it possible that you might even fear for your life if you didn't shoot the man on top of you?

Isn't the jury made up entirely of women? If so, that is a huge break for Zimmerman.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

So bottom line is anyone that kills someone no matter what the reason just has to say the magical words ''SELF DEFENSE '' and poof....no charges ...no court...no trial...just go home like it never happened ....AWESOME !!!!!

 

[Gawain]

Isn't the jury made up entirely of women? If so, that is a huge break for Zimmerman.

I didn't think of it before this post, but Christo is definitely right that women when thinking about the struggle are likely to have less experience in such an arena than men. It would be likely that of a jury of 6 men, one or more of them have been punched in the face without fearing for their life. It is much less likely with an all-female jury.

 

[timschochet]

Isn't the jury made up entirely of women? If so, that is a huge break for Zimmerman.

I didn't think of it before this post, but Christo is definitely right that women when thinking about the struggle are likely to have less experience in such an arena than men. It would be likely that of a jury of 6 men, one or more of them have been punched in the face without fearing for their life. It is much less likely with an all-female jury.

Yep. All women seems to be a definite win for Zimmerman.

It was originally speculated that women might be less sympathetic to gun rights, and this could hurt Zimmerman. But one of these women is married to a guy who owns guns, and another has her own CCW. So that's pretty much nullified.

Also 5 white women, and 1 hispanic. Worst possible outcome for the prosecution, IMO.

 

[Warrior]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

Your retorts grow more pathetic by the minute. Smilies and subject changing/deflecting...nice work here.

Just admit you never read the "great bodily harm" part and that you were wrong about the law.

 

[timschochet]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

Your retorts grow more pathetic by the minute. Smilies and subject changing/deflecting...nice work here.

Just admit you never read the "great bodily harm" part and that you were wrong about the law.

I never read it, and I was wrong about that. It's still a terrible law.

 

[Christo]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

Your retorts grow more pathetic by the minute. Smilies and subject changing/deflecting...nice work here.

Just admit you never read the "great bodily harm" part and that you were wrong about the law.

I never read it, and I was wrong about that. It's still a terrible law.

Why? Every damned state is essentially the same:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person inany of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a

felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,

against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or

surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends

and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter

the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any

person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a

wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such

person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to

commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent

danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the

person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant

or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have

endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was

committed; or,

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and

means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in

lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving

the peace.

California Penal Code Sec. 197

 

[pittstownkiller]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

Your retorts grow more pathetic by the minute. Smilies and subject changing/deflecting...nice work here.Just admit you never read the "great bodily harm" part and that you were wrong about the law.

I never read it, and I was wrong about that. It's still a terrible law.

It is law because trying to prove that you are in fear for your life is nearly impossible unless you can read the other (dead) man's mind.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.

We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

Either this isn't sinking in, or he's pretendeding he doesn't see it... We've been trying to explain this to him the entire thread.. He will bring it back up in about 10 pages.. Like we never had this conversation..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

Unlike some of your other posts in this thread, you make a strong, rational argument here. It's far superior to my emotional rant last night.But I still think it was murder.

You mean like all the irrational arguments I make pointing out how wrong you are on the law? After calling a lot of people out, including me, you have not said one word that perhaps you were wrong.

If Zimmerman doesn't end up testifying, I will come in here and admit that you and the others were right. I will also complain loudly that the Florida laws are unjust, because I strongly believe that anyone who claims self-defense for a killing should have to take the stand in his own defense no matter what. But I ALWAYS acknowledge when others are right and I am wrong.We'll see if that happens.

You have the right to remain silent in every state in the land. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand and the jury still decides he's not guilty it means the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you don't like it, our criminal justice system puts a great burden on the state in order to take someone's freedom away. It has nothing to do with any state's particular laws.

You seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of my critics here, and I'm a bit surprised by that. Of course what you wrote is correct, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, because I began my comments with the assumption that the prosecution would do a competent job to begin with. Put aside the letter of the law for a moment and let me repeat myself: Realistically, if the prosecution demonstrates that a killing took place, then Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand or he is going to be found guilty. That is what I believe. He is not forced to take the stand. There is a chance that if he doesn't take the stand, he can still walk away from this, and perhaps his attorney or he believes this, or are hoping this is true. But I think that if he does not take the stand, he's going down.Earlier in this thread, you seemed to agree with this. You stated that in any case of self-defense on a murder charge, the defendant would likely have to testify. You never said it was forced, but you said that if a defendant wanted any chance of winning that's what he would have to do. That comment by you impressed me, and that's what I've been going with in my argument. If it's wrong, or if I misinterpreted you, please let me know.

I'm talking about your statement about Florida laws being unjust and a defendant being required to take the stand.

Then you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me make it more clear: IF the prosecution is competent and IF Zimmerman does not testify and IF Zimmerman is acquitted and IF this is mainly due to some quirk in Florida laws which provides for a much broader interpretation of self-defense than in other states, THEN we will have a miscarriage of justice IMO.

So long as Zimmerman has to testify I will be fine with the verdict either way.

Now you're saying "IF" but you were before stating this as an assumption of fact..

The burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal cases.. In every state in the country..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

9:00 AM who's watching?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Hung-Jury/Mistrial? (did I phrase this right?)

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder

Y/N

Zimmerman is found guilty of Manslaughter

Y/N/Jury does not have the option

Zimmerman takes the stand

Y/N

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

Dee-Dee (Martin's girlfriend) takes the stand

Y/N

Martin's drug use prior to the night in question is brought up at trial

Y/N

Martin's Tox report (THC) the night he was killed is brought up at trial

Y/N

Drug/Pharma expert takes the stand

Y/N

My answers

 

[Sinn Fein]

9:00 AM who's watching?

Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Strong opening for State.

 

[Rayderr]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

My answers

Not off to a good start.

The prosecution wanted to present a series of 911 calls as evidence that could establish who was heard screaming for help, but Judge Debra Nelson ruled against expert testimony on the calls, saying the quality of the audio makes it impossible to tell whose voice is heard in the background.