Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

MOM quoting Zimmerman's trainer:

"I wouldn't even let him shadow box in fear that the shadow might win"

 

[jamny]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Right....that's not biased in any way How about try listening from a JUROR'S perspective....that's all that matters and the least biased approach you have.

I would imagine most, if not all, of the jurors are already leaning one way or another and are listening to closing arguments with a bias as well.

Don't disagree....leaning one way or the other <> firmly entrenched. I'd hope these ladies have started forming opinions because the approaches from both sides have been less than desirable IMO.

true

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Can someone please link me up to the potential jail time Zim could be looking at? Did I hear 30 years is a possibility?

I'm looking at the Florida sentencing guidelines and am trying to use the scoresheet. (EDIT: available at: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sen_cpcm/cpc_manual.pdf) Keep in mind I'm making some assumptions about whether "victim death" can be counted in addition to the underlying offense for calculation purposes. But here goes.

1. Manslaughter is a Category 7 offense carrying a sentencing value of 56 points.

2. A "victim injury" of "death" carries with it a sentencing value of 120 points.

3. Use of a firearm carries with it a sentencing value of 18 points.

The sentencing formula is (Total Sentencing points - 28) * .75 = minimum months of jailtime.

So I get 194 sentencing points. Doing the math, I get 124.5 months, or roughly 10 years, 4 months and change.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

The prosecution had little choice. Any coherent story they tried to tell would have gaping holes and thus easy to find reasonable doubt.

The prosecution doesn't need a coherent narrative of what happened. They need a coherent theme. There is a difference.

 

[The Commish]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

Genuine question.....is there ever a worry from a lawyer's perspective that they will ever get selected for a jury? It doesn't seem like either a prosecutor or defender would want a lawyer on the stand for any reason

My understanding is that is true in general, but not really in jurisdictions where there are lots of lawyers. I have jury duty in August. I'll report back.

I'm a lawyer, and I've been chosen for jury duty in what I believe is your lawyer-heavy jurisdiction. I hadn't done any criminal work since law school, though.

During jury selection did they ask you noticeably more questions than the other potential jurors?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

MOM ripping apart BDLR's "assumption / supposition / coulda been" that Trayvon after beating on Zimmerman for 40+ seconds decided to retreat at the exact same moment the gun was fired as MOM puts his arms up and leans back to mimic BDLR's re-enactment of what he narrates that Trayvon did. MOM says where is the evidence? You want us to believe this when it's already been proven there was space between the clothing and the skin that it is impossible for Trayvon to be sitting vertical at the point of impact? "Really? Really?"

"Just give me a shred of evidence that supports this or contradicts that Zimmerman had any other option" then talks about the expert that said Zimmerman had no other option when he pulled the trigger.

 

[Zow]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

How many hours of the trial you are commenting on have you watched?

 

[Rayderr]

Can someone please link me up to the potential jail time Zim could be looking at? Did I hear 30 years is a possibility?

I'm looking at the Florida sentencing guidelines and am trying to use the scoresheet. (EDIT: available at: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sen_cpcm/cpc_manual.pdf) Keep in mind I'm making some assumptions about whether "victim death" can be counted in addition to the underlying offense for calculation purposes. But here goes.

1. Manslaughter is a Category 7 offense carrying a sentencing value of 56 points.

2. A "victim injury" of "death" carries with it a sentencing value of 120 points.

3. Use of a firearm carries with it a sentencing value of 18 points.

The sentencing formula is (Total Sentencing points - 28) * .75 = minimum months of jailtime.

So I get 194 sentencing points. Doing the math, I get 124.5 months, or roughly 10 years, 4 months and change.

They must've hired the same people who came up with the QB rating system.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the prosecution have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

Defense has a small burden to show self-defense and I believe that burden has been met.

I'll let a lawyer answer what the State has to do so I don't piss off any of the lawyers in this thread for giving my opinion on something of which I don't have a proper degree in.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

How many hours of the trial you are commenting on have you watched?

 

[timschochet]

"Broke his nose or something close to it"....

"Really? Come on! Really?"- how many times has he said that?

 

[T Bell]

I always love the "you're not a lawyer" comments. I don't need to be a lawyer to know the law and/or have an opinion on it. Lots of "Internet Lawyers" around here.

 

[Slapdash]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

How many hours of the trial you are commenting on have you watched?

Did your PCP theory come up in the trial?

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

I don't sense that at all. Seems just matter-of-fact. If anything a little more emotion might be nice.

Exactly......it's hilarious how people can't control their bias.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Did your PCP theory come up in the trial?

Judge didn't allow it, shocking AMIRIGHT?

 

[T Bell]

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

200+ hours! In real time! That's dedication right there.

When you work for yourself you can work and have it play in the background.

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

I multitask very well but when I tried to do a concall and listen to the closing argument it got difficult. when I objected to my coworkers statement I knew it was time to mute the TV.

I'd be interested to know if Jojo would be ok if his lawyer charged him full fees for review of a video of court proceedings related to his case all while he was working on another case on his desk.

He strikes me as one of those clients who'd flip if he got wind of that.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

The jury instructions are very clear that the burden to show that Martin did not act in self-defense rests with the State.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

200+ hours! In real time! That's dedication right there.

When you work for yourself you can work and have it play in the background.

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

I multitask very well but when I tried to do a concall and listen to the closing argument it got difficult. when I objected to my coworkers statement I knew it was time to mute the TV.

I'd be interested to know if Jojo would be ok if his lawyer charged him full fees for review of a video of court proceedings related to his case all while he was working on another case on his desk.

He strikes me as one of those clients who'd flip if he got wind of that.

You lawyers sure do like to speculate.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

The jury instructions are very clear that the burden to show that Martin did not act in self-defense rests with the State.

Thanks!

 

[roarlions]

Did John Good testify that he shouted that he was going to call 911 before heading back inside? Is it reasonable to assume that both Trayvon and Zimmerman heard that announcement?

 

[jamny]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

I don't sense that at all. Seems just matter-of-fact. If anything a little more emotion might be nice.

Exactly......it's hilarious how people can't control their bias.

If you mean me, I think Zimmerman should get jail time but probably won't.

 

[Rayderr]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

The jury instructions are very clear that the burden to show that Martin did not act in self-defense rests with the State.

I'm assuming you meant ZImmerman, or was I just transported to some bizzaro universe?

 

[Zow]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

How many hours of the trial you are commenting on have you watched?

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

 

[The Commish]

Did John Good testify that he shouted that he was going to call 911 before heading back inside? Is it reasonable to assume that both Trayvon and Zimmerman heard that announcement?

There's no way they didn't know the police were on their way. Goes for both Trayvon and George.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

The jury instructions are very clear that the burden to show that Martin did not act in self-defense rests with the State.

I'm assuming you meant ZImmerman, or was I just transported to some bizzaro universe?

Yeah, typo. Sorry.

 

[timschochet]

Really? Come on! Really?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

 

[BoltzNBrew]

After closing arguments I still don't see how they can convict GZ on any of the charges.

 

[timschochet]

Now he's saying it's a tragedy. A few minutes ago, he was strongly implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

I don't sense that at all. Seems just matter-of-fact. If anything a little more emotion might be nice.

Exactly......it's hilarious how people can't control their bias.

If you mean me, I think Zimmerman should get jail time but probably won't.

No.....not at all talking about you. I was agreeing with you that the lawyer wasn't talking down to the jury at all. I'm just amused that people will see what they want to see regardless of what is actually happening.

 

[jon_mx]

Now he's saying it's a tragedy. A few minutes ago, he was strongly implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug.

Both can be true.

 

[timschochet]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

 

[Zow]

So who wants to guess that defenses sidebar this morning was warning the judge and prosecutors that'd he'd be taking a 5min break but not really, so don't interrupt it?

In my jurisdiction (which those following the Jodi Arias case should be very familiar with and experts on, apparently, since they watched the trial) we always spend like 15 minutes per day outside the presence of the jury before starting to cover any foreseeable issues. I'd imagine the lawyer would have covered it then, if possible.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Now he's saying it's a tragedy. A few minutes ago, he was strongly implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug.

Now he's saying it's a tragedy. A few minutes ago, he was strongly implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug.

Both can be true.

yep. perhaps it is a tragedy because at 17, even a thug can change his stripes.

 

[jamny]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

I don't sense that at all. Seems just matter-of-fact. If anything a little more emotion might be nice.

Exactly......it's hilarious how people can't control their bias.

If you mean me, I think Zimmerman should get jail time but probably won't.

No.....not at all talking about you. I was agreeing with you that the lawyer wasn't talking down to the jury at all. I'm just amused that people will see what they want to see regardless of what is actually happening.

My sarcasm meter must be set too high.

 

[roarlions]

Did John Good testify that he shouted that he was going to call 911 before heading back inside? Is it reasonable to assume that both Trayvon and Zimmerman heard that announcement?

There's no way they didn't know the police were on their way. Goes for both Trayvon and George.

If true, seems like it would have been a good time for Trayvon to have tried to get away before the police arrived.

 

[timschochet]

Now he's saying it's a tragedy. A few minutes ago, he was strongly implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug.

Both can be true.

The point of implying that Martin was a thug (and bringing up the witness who said she couldn't defend herself) was to further imply, as Mr. Two Cents did earlier in this thread, that George Zimmerman saved lives by killing Trayvon Martin. If you believe that, then the death of Martin was NOT a tragedy.

 

[ATC1]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

He's talking about the interpretation of the law, not what GZ felt. So, if you don't believe GZ when he said he thought he was going to die, it could still be self defense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

You really, really need to stop the "I've watched the entire trial and you haven't," trail of thought.

 

[timschochet]

What happened to the cartoon? JoJo said I was gonna see a cartoon.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Does the defense need to prove "self defense" or does the state have to prove it wasn't "self defense"? After everything, we know Z shot TM so manslaughter seems obvious unless the state did not prove it wasn't self defense.

The jury instructions are very clear that the burden to show that Martin did not act in self-defense rests with the State.

I'm assuming you meant ZImmerman, or was I just transported to some bizzaro universe?

MOM constantly calling this the bizzaro case.

 

[timschochet]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

He's talking about the interpretation of the law, not what GZ felt. So, if you don't believe GZ when he said he thought he was going to die, it could still be self defense.

That's true, but as I've stated before, IMO if the jury comes to regard GZ as a liar, he will be convicted (despite the fact that the law says something very differently.)

 

[T Bell]

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Are you the equivalent of what I sound like in girl threads?

How many hours of the trial you are commenting on have you watched?

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

:blowsout:

 

[ATC1]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

He's talking about the interpretation of the law, not what GZ felt. So, if you don't believe GZ when he said he thought he was going to die, it could still be self defense.

That's true, but as I've stated before, IMO if the jury comes to regard GZ as a liar, he will be convicted (despite the fact that the law says something very differently.)

HE was trying the best he can to get the jury to realize that is not the case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I strongly agree and said the same earlier. The Jury has written instructions yet he felt the need to basically read it to them.

I don't think the jury has the written instructions yet.

 

[Zow]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

Eh, I take this as legal strategy by the defense attorney to cover all potential angles to hammer home that legally the defendant is not guilty. This is often done when the defendant's credibility may be at issue, yet there's still a good defense to the state's case in chief. Lines like "even if you do decide that the [defendant's] story is entirely believable and you lean more towards believing the state witnesses, you still should find [defendant] not guilty because...."

It's essentially hedging your bets and I like to do it with juries to show that I'm not some paid mouthpiece who is forcefeeding them some trumped up story and instead can sympathize with factual discrepancies and objectively analyze the case. If I have picked the right jury for this strategy, it usually works well - especially in like DUI cases.

 

[jon_mx]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

He's talking about the interpretation of the law, not what GZ felt. So, if you don't believe GZ when he said he thought he was going to die, it could still be self defense.

Exactly. It could be that Zimmerman was lying or that his belief was completely unreasonable that he feared for his life. But if the jury believes it is reasonable for Zimmerman to have fear of severe bodily harm, then it is self-defense.