itsrequired
New Member
Hmph. Win or lose, Georgie will be able to live with the fact that this 17 year old will never sucker punch anyone again.
Zimmerman's Defense Today
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Hopefully George learned that he should have shot the thug sooner than he did.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
There it is.....
Idiots that have some misguided concept that because Travon attacked Zimmerman with his fists and was slugging him repeatedly in the face it was "unfair" that Zimmerman shot him.
Was it unfair that his neighborhood suffered repeated burglaries?
Was it unfair that it was necessary for his community to NEED to form a neighborhood watch?
If I had gone to the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit and some thug started beating on me I'd shoot the SOB and I wouldn't check his ID to find out how old he was first.
Boooo frickin hooo.
if the little dumbass hadn't decided to start beating on Zimmerman he would still be posting thug pictures on the internet and screwing that incredibly stupid fat girl
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
Martin became the aggressor when he punched Zimmerman
When he had him on the ground beating his face he became dead
Tilted
..
These Zimmerman-Martin threads tend to have the effect of making my eyes glaze over. Am I alone in that reaction?
Anyway, my quick weigh in: At this point I think Mr. Zimmerman is very likely to be acquitted, mostly because the state has such a high burden of proof to overcome. It seems likely that the prosecution will ask for a manslaughter instruction, but I don't think they've met they're burden even on that charge.
Most of the judges major rulings have gone in favor of the defense and the prosecution, in my opinion, made a major mistake putting into evidence various statements that Mr. Zimmerman made. I understand why they did that, they thought they could clearly show that he had lied about various (non-dispositve, but potentially credibility-harming) aspects of the situation. They were probably successful in that, but at the cost of making it possible for Mr. Zimmerman to avoid taking the stand to tell his story. Absent the introduction of his statements by the prosecution, I think Mr. Zimmerman would have to have taken the stand to tell the jury that, yes, he shot Mr. Martin but it was in self-defense - he feared for his life at the moment he fired the shot. No one else could really establish that. The defense may not have even been able to get a self-defense instruction without his testimony (and without the prosecution introducing his statements), I'm not sure it would have met the (albeit rather low) standard. They may have met that standard (absent Mr. Zimmerman's statements), but that isn't as clear as it is now - I think they've easily met it now. I don't think Mr. Zimmerman will testify now. And to the extent the prosecution thought it could impeach Mr. Zimmerman's credibility, I think it could have done so much more meaningfully - at least, more dramatically - if it had the chance to cross examine him live in front of the jury.
As for what really happened that night - who was the bad actor and to what extent each was - I think we still don't really know, the essential aspects are still grey. It's pretty easy to make the case that Mr. Martin acted reasonably and it's pretty easy to make the case that Mr. Zimmerman acted reasonably (after the initiation of the situation, that is). It depends on how things actually developed, and we just don't have any way of knowing that. If you want to believe Mr. Zimmerman acted, for the most part, in an acceptable manner, you can claim that he did - you can presume things developed in a manner that supports that claim. I can't convincingly refute that claim without myself presuming that things developed in a different manner. On the other hand, if you want to believe Mr. Martin acted, for the most part, in an acceptable manner, you can claim that as well by similarly presuming that things developed in a certain manner. And, likewise, I can't convincingly refute that claim without presuming that things didn't happen in that manner.
That doesn't matter much for the outcome of this trial though. Mr. Zimmerman should be acquitted based on the law and the evidence before the jury. That doesn't mean he did nothing wrong, it means the state hasn't met the burden of proof for murder or manslaughter. Now that we've seen a lot of the evidence and testimony, it seems to me that the prosecution was fighting an uphill battle to begin with. The mistakes (that I think) they made and the unfavorable rulings from the judge (on the major issues) have just made their failure (to meet their burden) more convincing.
Anyway, my quick weigh in: At this point I think Mr. Zimmerman is very likely to be acquitted, mostly because the state has such a high burden of proof to overcome. It seems likely that the prosecution will ask for a manslaughter instruction, but I don't think they've met they're burden even on that charge.
Most of the judges major rulings have gone in favor of the defense and the prosecution, in my opinion, made a major mistake putting into evidence various statements that Mr. Zimmerman made. I understand why they did that, they thought they could clearly show that he had lied about various (non-dispositve, but potentially credibility-harming) aspects of the situation. They were probably successful in that, but at the cost of making it possible for Mr. Zimmerman to avoid taking the stand to tell his story. Absent the introduction of his statements by the prosecution, I think Mr. Zimmerman would have to have taken the stand to tell the jury that, yes, he shot Mr. Martin but it was in self-defense - he feared for his life at the moment he fired the shot. No one else could really establish that. The defense may not have even been able to get a self-defense instruction without his testimony (and without the prosecution introducing his statements), I'm not sure it would have met the (albeit rather low) standard. They may have met that standard (absent Mr. Zimmerman's statements), but that isn't as clear as it is now - I think they've easily met it now. I don't think Mr. Zimmerman will testify now. And to the extent the prosecution thought it could impeach Mr. Zimmerman's credibility, I think it could have done so much more meaningfully - at least, more dramatically - if it had the chance to cross examine him live in front of the jury.
As for what really happened that night - who was the bad actor and to what extent each was - I think we still don't really know, the essential aspects are still grey. It's pretty easy to make the case that Mr. Martin acted reasonably and it's pretty easy to make the case that Mr. Zimmerman acted reasonably (after the initiation of the situation, that is). It depends on how things actually developed, and we just don't have any way of knowing that. If you want to believe Mr. Zimmerman acted, for the most part, in an acceptable manner, you can claim that he did - you can presume things developed in a manner that supports that claim. I can't convincingly refute that claim without myself presuming that things developed in a different manner. On the other hand, if you want to believe Mr. Martin acted, for the most part, in an acceptable manner, you can claim that as well by similarly presuming that things developed in a certain manner. And, likewise, I can't convincingly refute that claim without presuming that things didn't happen in that manner.
That doesn't matter much for the outcome of this trial though. Mr. Zimmerman should be acquitted based on the law and the evidence before the jury. That doesn't mean he did nothing wrong, it means the state hasn't met the burden of proof for murder or manslaughter. Now that we've seen a lot of the evidence and testimony, it seems to me that the prosecution was fighting an uphill battle to begin with. The mistakes (that I think) they made and the unfavorable rulings from the judge (on the major issues) have just made their failure (to meet their burden) more convincing.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Buy a clue idiot. I was mocking you and your stupid argument.
Tilted
..
It is quite fascinating what issues draw what portion of our attention, isn't it? That's especially true when we consider them in relative terms.Yes.
I'm guilty of questionable attention attenuation myself, but the phenomenon is fascinating nonetheless.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Yes? And your point?
I was being facetious, of course. I'm sure that many people will be glad to see this story disappear so that stories about Kim Kardashian's breast feeding anxiety issues return to the fore where they belong.
ftcret
New Member
...stories about Kim Kardashian's breast feeding anxiety issues return to the fore where they belong.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
my point is that you are spinning.....
and like tilted said, in one case you find the actions aggressive and instigation, in the other you excuse it becasue it doesn't fit with your assumptions.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Actually I'm sitting here listening to the trial (in fact I'm going back to watching actual evidence rather than made-up opinions). Later.
Which he ended properly by shooting his assailant.
willie
Well-Known Member
Speaking of lol's, where were you when the prosecution "expert" witness gave the explanation of the "minor abrasions" on Zimmerman's head?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
You mean the expert in just about every weapon system, combat techniques, 20+ years in law enforcement, etc.
Yea, I'm sure he doesn't know what he's talking about.
