The Zimmerman Trial

Part of self defense is the fact that you have the right to act if you have imminent belief of grievous bodily harm.

Correct.

When you taught the class, what did you teach was reasonable fear?

When you are judged by a jury, what a reasonable person would judge as a reasoable fear.

Yet another prosecution witness turned.

I would almost think they were trying to throw this case if it weren't for the obvious bias of this judge.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually not at all.

Listen carefully to what he says about proportionate levels of force, and keep in mind the standard used by a Jury when making those types of decisions.

Reading from where we left off in discussion yesterday, it simply amazes me how some things stated have been completely disregarded and so many posters simply have no understanding of what they are seeing and what it means. It almost makes it not worth the effort to continue to participate in this thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by UnBreakable

 

Originally posted by UnBreakable
My point is the biased judge is letting the state bring in GZ's past. The defense should be able to bring in TM's past.

To prove what? That Trayvon fought? We already know he fought. George's injuries pretty much prove that.

Question is: Who attacked first? Trayvon's past would not indicate one way or another whether he attacked George that night or not.

No, to show TM had the propensity for violence and commit burglary, which would add credence to the story GZsaid he saw TM looking in windows. Just as GZ school records don't "prove" GZ was a wannabe cop.



"Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors"

patdollard.com...

Originally posted by Libertygal
I would almost think they were trying to throw this case if it weren't for the obvious bias of this judge.

I totally agree with you. The prosecutors have nothing.
(And The judge obviously is pro-prosecution on this one.)
I'm wondering if the prosecutors are going to have their hats and jobs handed to them ...
THey are doing a worse job than even the OJ case prosecutors did.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Part of self defense is the fact that you have the right to act if you have imminent belief of grievous bodily harm.

Correct.

When you taught the class, what did you teach was reasonable fear?

When you are judged by a jury, what a reasonable person would judge as a reasoable fear.

Yet another prosecution witness turned.

I would almost think they were trying to throw this case if it weren't for the obvious bias of this judge.

What bias? You people making this claim make me sick. You really do. If you had any true understanding of how the law works, you would realize just how utterly stupid these types of comments are.

But guess what?? The witness was not turned. I suggest looking up the legal definition of the word "reasonable". Not the dictionary definition, but the legal definition.

Let me explain something to you about a "reasonable fear". How much "fear" can you have when you are in a fight with a person who is unarmed, and you ARE armed?

Maybe that was something you missed when you were typing away about the Judge's "bias" and claiming the witness was turned

Aha. The fact that there were injuries supports the fact that there was reasonable fear.

Been saying that all along.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's all about disproportionate response. George used it

This is one of my pet irks ... 'disproportionate response' .. gets tossed around.
Look .. if someone is beating me up and I have the ability to stop it .. I"m going to.
I'm not going to worry about what happens to him. I'm going to worry about ME.

I've had a concussion ... 4 years ago .... my head still whistles to this day.
I still can't watch fast moving tv shows or movies ... or blinking things ...
or flashing things. All because of a 'minor' concussion four years ago.

I won't risk perm. injury if I don't have to.
And yes .. 'minor' concussions can do that. Perm. injury.

reply to post by UnBreakable

Originally posted by UnBreakable
No, to show TM had the propensity for violence and commit burglary, which would add credence to the story GZsaid he saw TM looking in windows. Just as GZ school records don't "prove" GZ was a wannabe cop.

When Zimmerman saw Martin that night, he had NO knowledge of Trayvon's past. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was looking in windows or looking to commit burglary. Zimmerman still had no right to take the law into his own hands. The only thing that matters is how the physical confrontation started.

Originally posted by MrWendal
But guess what?? The witness was not turned.

Duuuuude ... he was turned. Every talking head legal eagle on the TV is saying so.
Hard core Martin supporters are saying so. It's obvious. He dropped A bomb after A bomb
onto the Prosecution.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The only thing that matters is how the physical confrontation started.

there ya' go. And none of what is going on with this trial is giving us that answer.

Originally posted by UnBreakable
No, to show TM had the propensity for violence and commit burglary, which would add credence to the story GZsaid he saw TM looking in windows.

How silly. First off Zimmerman never said Trayvon was looking in windows or in houses. He said he was looking AT houses. Big difference.

Secondly, Trayvon was not in the commission of committing a burglary or a violent act at the time he drew suspicion from Zimmerman. Plus Zimmerman had no idea who Trayvon was, therefor these things could not possibly have played a part on what Zimmerman thought or why he thought it at the time he began "keeping a visual" on Trayvon and calling 911.

Just as GZ school records don't "prove" GZ was a wannabe cop.

No his school record doesn't. The point of the testimony was to show that Zimmerman lied when he said he never heard of Stand Your Ground and had no idea what it was. Showing that he applied for a ride along with the Sandford PD because he had plans to apply for employment through that department however, adds more fuel to the fire of showing he was a wanna be cop. It also shows a pattern. The pattern being, he had not given up on the idea of becoming a cop after failing to get hired as a cop in Virgina.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MrWendal
But guess what?? The witness was not turned.

Duuuuude ... he was turned. Every talking head legal eagle on the TV is saying so.
Hard core Martin supporters are saying so. It's obvious. He dropped A bomb after A bomb
onto the Prosecution.

edit on 7/3/2013 by FlyersFan because: spelling

Which channel are you watching? I just saw one legal expert on CNN who contradicts your statement.

edit to add: They also cut that legal expert off because the side bar had ended.

reply to post by MrWendal


The bias diasplayed, such as at opening gavel yesterday when she allowed an objection to testimony from the day before, then threw the testimony out.

It is not only unheard of, but obvious bias. Even other judges are expressing dismay at her actions.

It has nothing to do with which "side" someone is on, it has to do with JUSTICE, and the FACT that a judge shoukd be neutral.She is obviously not.

Objections are to be made at the time of testimony, not the next day. Go ahead and argue that point, and show us all your bias, as well.

It's okay, because once something is heard, it is impossible to unhear it. The jury got to sleep on that answer.

Many said this in the comments... We'll see the prosecution turn defense witnesses, too.

I'm not going to make a judgment until I hear both sides.

Some people are strange. They've just been provided clear proof that their golden boy lied on national tv, and they still think it means nothing much. George HAD to be aware of SYG law when he was asked that question on the Hannity show, so now the jury knows that a blatant liar was in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. Wait until they hear that George spent numerous sessions defending sustained pressure from an attacker, during his 500 hrs or more at a mma gym.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's all about disproportionate response. George used it

This is one of my pet irks ... 'disproportionate response' .. gets tossed around.
Look .. if someone is beating me up and I have the ability to stop it .. I"m going to.
I'm not going to worry about what happens to him. I'm going to worry about ME.

Would you respond to your frail, drunken granny weilding a knife, with the same ruthlessness as you'd respond to an imposing stranger doing the same thing? If a man is facing a drunken guy who is trying to beat the crap out of, but failing miserably, you shouldn't have the right to shoot them because you don't want to get your clothes wrinkled restraining them.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by MrWendal

 

The bias diasplayed, such as at opening gavel yesterday when she allowed an objection to testimony from the day before, then threw the testimony out.

No it is not "unheard of". I strongly suggest researching a bit. Testimony gets tossed out all the time after the fact. Funny thing is, it usually happens on the objections of the defense and usually involves expert testimony.

It is not only unheard of, but obvious bias. Even other judges are expressing dismay at her actions.

Of course they are, cause right now everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame.

It has nothing to do with which "side" someone is on, it has to do with JUSTICE, and the FACT that a judge shoukd be neutral.She is obviously not.

Based on your assumption which is flat out wrong?

Objections are to be made at the time of testimony, not the next day. Go ahead and argue that point, and show us all your bias, as well.

Tell you what... I will make is easy for you. You can start with looking into the case of NBA Player Jason Williams and the testimony that was tossed out AFTER the fact. Once you are finished reviewing that case, feel free to review some more and then come back and tell me how biased I am, or simply admit you actually have no clue what you are talking about right now.

It's okay, because once something is heard, it is impossible to unhear it. The jury got to sleep on that answer.

How funny... I said the same thing a million pages ago. You can not unring a bell, but I guess I am just being "biased" again huh?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


No one is arguing he took the class, that he took the part on self defense.

What you seem to be missing is, it was a simple case of semantics. He did not kniw it by the nickname Stand Your Ground Law. It's really THAT simple.

When asked, he answered honestly, he didn't know what SYG law was. He was however, familiar, if he had been asked, with self defense laws, and if he had been asked about Castle Doctrine, or code 776, I feel assured he would have said yes.

The nickname SYG came along later, after he took the class.

It's a nothingburger.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
And some of you defend this GARBAGE???

Zimmerman - Tells Hannity that he also does not regret following Trayvon or having the gun. "I feel like it was God's plan." Read more: globalgrind.com...

God doesn't need your help, Mr. Zimmerman!

I still have a hard time believing that some skinny little punk, beat up on someone much bigger than him.

Zimmerman told Serino he estimates he was hit between 25-30 times by Trayvon. Read more: globalgrind.com...

25-30 times?

What was Zimmerman doing, while this was happening? Looking for his gun???

You know the funny thing about Zimmerman's God comment? It's TRUE!. Well at least if you believe in God.

If you believe that God exists and that he has some divine plan, and that everything that occurs is a part of that plan... then wouldn't it stand to reason that Zimmerman killing Trayvon WAS indeed a part of God's plan?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MrWendal
But guess what?? The witness was not turned.

Duuuuude ... he was turned. Every talking head legal eagle on the TV is saying so.
Hard core Martin supporters are saying so. It's obvious. He dropped A bomb after A bomb
onto the Prosecution.

edit on 7/3/2013 by FlyersFan because: spelling

Which channel are you watching? I just saw one legal expert on CNN who contradicts your statement.

edit to add: They also cut that legal expert off because the side bar had ended.

edit on 3-7-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

so your gonna listen to the network who's expert put it out there that GM said F...... C... , one of the ones who stated all of the media bias, then after it spread like wildfire, and after they were called on it changed their story.

as far as i'm concerned, CNN and their Daughter NetWork HLN the home Of Nancy Grace, none of their experts,
should even be considered as unbiased. The same goes for NBC, who seem to be trying to be neutral or even pro GM.