The Zimmerman Trial

I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

reply to post by HomeBrew


The prosecution need to prove it is NOT the case.

Originally posted by roadgravel

I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

reply to post by HomeBrew

 

The prosecution need to prove it is NOT the case.

Did you even read my post? I agree that in a legal sense this is what needs to happen, I just do not believe the jurors will see it that way. And if his account of what happened can not be stated as truth beyond a reasonable doubt, then can he be found innocent?

reply to post by HomeBrew


Sorry dude, a bit testy tonight it seems. If the state, cannot show evidence and credible eye witness testimony that his story is an outright lie, than he must be set free. That is the foundation of our very eroded justice system. These days judges don't even inform juries of their right to jury nullification for example. If you listen to prosecution, they would have you believe that it is the defendant's job to prove innocence.

12'th witness - RJ - I could go on for days about this one! Lies, altered statements, bad attitude, and oh, wow, the mumbling! She stated first that TM told her he was almost back, and later, claims he said the same thing. The distance from the street to the site isn't that far. She speaks of fixing her hair, and later claims that she wasn't distracted, and was paying attention. She says on the stand that, after TM (according to her) said, ""Why are you following me for?", the other person said, ""what'cho doing around here?". In earlier statements, she stated that the person said, instead, "What are you talking about?". She reveals that TM used at least two racial comments towards GZ, "creepy *bleep* (crispy thing you eat cheese on), and the "n-word". She lied to TMs mother about both her name and her age, and about why she didn't attend the funeral. She stated that she believed this was "just a fight", and this is the reason she didn't call anyone for help. This supports the defense claims that TM attacked. She claimed to not want to be on television, but a taped phone statement was used on television. She claims she didn't approve this, but I fond that difficult to believe. She as 18 at the time, and would have had to sign a release. She stated that she and TM were "just friends", but that texts between them would make someone think they were in an intimate relationship. Hmmmmm..... In an earlier recorded statement, when asked if she could ID the screams, she said, "It could be trayvon". Later, she claimed, "It sounded like trayvon", claiming he had a baby voice. She seemed unable to commit, said she didn't know, but it "could be", because he
had a "soft voice, and that baby voice sometimes". Then, most interestingly, she stated, "You know it's not." WOW. She lied about writing a letter, and had to admit that she could not even READ it, as she cannot read cursive. It was brought out that, in early interviews done with her by the state, that TM's MOTHER was present and in the room. Nothing like influencing the testimony! She claimed first that TM didn't state whether r not GZ was on the phone, and had to admit she was told, when it was pointed out she'd already stated this. IN yet another discrepancy between her earlier statements and her court testimony, it's revealed that she said, "I couldn't hear it was Trayvon." This is VERY clear in the recording. She insists, with anger, that this wasn't what she said, claiming she said "could". At no time, in court, did she EVER say "could" as anything like "couldn't", proving that she was lying about this being simply "how she speaks". When the defense attorney asks the court if he can have that portion of the recording replayed, this woman actually tells him, "No, sir.", as though it's her decision! She is utterly unable to describe the sounds she states she heard, and why she believes they were this or that. When the defense points out that she had no way to know TMs actual location, or if he lied to her about it, she states, "That's real retarded sir.", and claims that if TM was starting a fight, he would get off the phone with her. This proves two things. She KNOWS what TM would do in case of a fight. The call DID, in fact, end, showing that he could have ended it, telling her he was going to attack someone. I almost felt sorry for the one state attorney, listening to this witness destroy their case. She made a habit of interrupting the defense with, "Yes, sir." as he repeated her answers, for clarification, no doubt, because of her mumbling, to the point that the state acted as though he was repeating questions, which he actually wasn't, for the most part. The judge was very biased through all of this. The witness proved, too, that she was actually capable of speaking loudly enough to be heard, as she became much louder and more clear the more agitated she was. The state would have been smarter, instead of concealing phone records and whatnot, to hide this witness, and never allow her near the stand!

reply to post by roadgravel


In my state as well, and deadly force IS authorized, to defend yourself, your home, your family and neighbors.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

Sorry dude, a bit testy tonight it seems. If the state, cannot show evidence and credible eye witness testimony that his story is an outright lie, than he must be set free. That is the foundation of our very eroded justice system. These days judges don't even inform juries of their right to jury nullification for example. If you listen to prosecution, they would have you believe that it is the defendant's job to prove innocence.

I agree with this, but to a varying degree. I simply believe that if the prosecution can show reasonable doubt in Zimmermans story, or if Zimmermans account of what happens is not beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, he is going to be found guilty. And considering he did Kill someone, his account of what happened is really the only thing that can win or lose this case. Everything hinges on the truth of his account. That is why I believe he is in a position where he needs to prove his innocence with a account of what happened that is beyond doubt.

I read your post. But it is the prosecution's duty to prove he broke the law, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

Now as far as what the jury does, they could as you say, find him guilty. That is if they somehow doubt that was the way the altercation started or maybe deadly force was not required.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Yeah, LGE You got it!

Its been a heck of a trial. Today was it!

Oh, LGE it was a little hard to read your post, you need to break it up a bit

Bye!

Originally posted by HomeBrew
That is why I believe he is in a position where he needs to prove his innocence.

NO ONE EVER in America should have to prove they are innocent.. Innocent until proven guilty is a foundation of this country! No one cares why YOU BELIEVE someone should have to prove their innocence, that is just not how it works.. Like the salem watch trials? Where the accused witches had to PROVE they were not witches/// ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!??

Watching Nancy Grace have her 'meltdown'...

Her and her guests are upset that that the defense's expert witness today brought the case on home, so now they are back and forth arguing who threw the first punch..

How about this Nancy: if there is EVIDENCE that Zimmerman was punched, and there is NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon Martin was punched...

hmmm...

then that means that Trayvon Martin threw ALL the punches!

Originally posted by roadgravel
I read your post. But it is the prosecution's duty to prove he broke the law, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

Now as far as what the jury does, they could as you say, find him guilty. That is if they somehow doubt that was the altercation started or maybe deadly force was not required.

I would agree with this if he did not already admit to killing Martin, but the killing of Martin (which is the real issue here) has already been admitted to. Zimmermans story is all that stands between a innocent man trying to stay alive and a overzealous man hunter who killed/murdered Martin. His account of what happened is what everything is based upon here. If his account can not be viewed as beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I think he will be found guilty. And because I have seen enough to raise shadows of doubt in his account, I think he should be found guilty. Murder or self defense, his account of what happens in the difference between the two. To think it need not be proven to the court (beyond reasonable doubt), right or wrong, is foolish.

Originally posted by starfoxxx

Originally posted by HomeBrew
That is why I believe he is in a position where he needs to prove his innocence.

NO ONE EVER in America should have to prove they are innocent.. Innocent until proven guilty is a foundation of this country! No one cares why YOU BELIEVE someone should have to prove their innocence, that is just not how it works.. Like the salem watch trials? Where the accused witches had to PROVE they were not witches/// ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!??

I know it takes a bit of comprehension to fully understand what I am saying here so I will try and make it a bit more clear for you. I am not necessarily saying the law legally requires him to prove his innocence, I am saying because the difference between a murder conviction and being set free solely hinges on his testimony of what happened, it need be presented in a manner where not a shadow of a doubt be cast...

Mind you, he did in fact KILL Martin. Do you really think his testimony of what happened, being accepted beyond a shadow of doubt, would not be a requirement? If his account of what happened can not be confirmed nor denied then all that is left is that he killed Martin.

Understand?

Originally posted by HomeBrew
*snip*
First, I really do not care how or why the interaction started. As long as no laws were broke, and that seems to be the facts of the case, it really does not matter who followed who or who started what.

Actually, when a person attacks another, that is a crime. That is what started this. Following, looking at someone, doesn't start a fight.

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Ok, having said that, it is clear that whatever happened leading up to a physical interaction, the point where it had escalated in to something that could be determined unlawful, it really a moot point. But what really matters here and the only real question that needs be asked is did Zimmerman act in a 'fight or flight' manner, fearing for his life with the only recourse of deadly force? Some may feel it is the prosecutions task to prove this was not the case and the killing of Martin was unjust however I disagree. I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

Under the law, you do not have to flee when threatened. So, even if he had that option, he could still use deadly force to defend himself. The reason those laws exist is because sometimes trying to flee puts you at even greater risk, and then unable to defend yourself, as you might have been able to had you stood your ground. Plus, when pinned to the ground, as confirmed by witnesses and evidence, and having your head pounded, also confirmed, then you'd better believe deadly force is authorized! A person can use deadly for if they believe that it is "“necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves.” You don't have to wait until you actually sustain serious injury to use this defense.

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Normally, I agree that innocent before proven guilty is the standard but does this apply here? Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin. This is fact. And considering this, I believe it should be he who needs to provide reasonable proof that this level of lethal force was required. Or at the very least, not have his story of what happened (that supports his case) have reasonable doubt. And I believe that there is reasonable doubt in his account.

So, what about this case makes this defendant, in your mind, not entitled to the protections of the Constitution? Killing a person in self defense is NOT murder, and in fact, the law in Florida is supposed to prevent a person from being charged with murder in such cases. This entire trial is a farce, and a gross miscarriage of justice, ignoring the law. The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution MUST provide that proof, or the person MUST be found innocent. That is the law, and it is right and just.

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Now, like I said before, I do believe him (Zimmerman) however after following the trial there is just too many 'less than' supporting facts and shreds of reasonable doubt everywhere to consider his account of what happened 'truth' beyond reasonable doubt. Again, he admits to killing Martin, but if his account of what happened has shadows of doubt (which it does with regards to courtroom testimony and evidence), how can he be found innocent? If he can not show beyond a reasonable doubt that his account is accurate and true then all that is really left is that he killed Martin.

Every single witness I have heard, and every piece of evidence I have seen, supports Mr. Zimmerman's story. There isn't a shred of evidence that this was anything but self defense. I have watched many hours of trial footage, and I have NO doubt that he's innocent, and shot in self defense, as he stated.

Originally posted by HomeBrew
I believe this is how the Jury will see it, and will be found guilty. Which is sad because I do believe that he was getting pummeled, feared for his life, and acted in a manor he felt was the only option left, to use lethal force. But, and again, that's just my gut feeling/opinion. Based on the facts, evidence, or lack there of, I think he should be found guilty.

edit on 9-7-2013 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)

If you believe he was in fear for his life, and attacked as stated, then why would you think the jury would believe otherwise? I have three long posts, starting on page 183, detailing information from several witnesses. Read through that, consider that the jury saw all this, and then see if you still think the state has a case.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Watching Nancy Grace have her 'meltdown'.

IMO she could care less about the victim. It is all about her ratings. I can tolerate about 10 minutes of her rants and no more.


Peace

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

They should have dropped the case after the state was finished

Don't think the judge wanted people blaming her for everything.

Good detective work you done there.

Peace

You might have a point, there. She's definitely biased, but the reasons for the bias aren't clear. It's possible she's actually afraid. Understandable, all things considered.

Thanks. It's a fascinating case, and I want to see ALL that is said, not the snippets the media offers. There is a YT channel called "crimetimevids" that has the stuff up. It's a LOT to watch, though! I still have days left, in between trying to catch some of the live coverage, and VBS all week. Maybe I can sleep next month.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Yeah, LGE You got it!

Its been a heck of a trial. Today was it!

Oh, LGE it was a little hard to read your post, you need to break it up a bit

Bye!

Will try and post a witness at a time for future stuff, as needed, then! I only saw a bit of today's, but that one neighbor lady friend of GZ certainly did a fine job stating that it was George she heard screaming on the recording. Watched a good bit of the later stuff, too, and WOW. The state seems to think they can deny a defendant the right to mount a defense!

Given the evidence, I do not see how he would be convicted. My belief does not matter, it is the jury's belief that does..

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes *snip*

There is not much you have said here that I outright disagree with, and I am not taking notes or referencing sources ect... I have simply been watching the trial, and getting a feel for how I think the atmosphere is their, in the jurors minds, the courtroom. And everything I have seen simply makes me think he is going to need to prove his innocence. Just about every 'witness' save a very few were murky at best as to what they saw/heard, and did not Zimmermans father even say the voice screaming for help on the tape was not his sons?

My whole point is that the killing of Martin is not being disputed, Zimmerman openly admits this. His account of what happened is the only real source of evidence that need be concrete to set him free. If reasonable doubt can be cast with his story then he is going to be found guilty, this is how I believe the jurors will see it and that is the overall feeling I am getting while watching the trial. Now, as I said before I 'believe' he is innocent and acted in a 'flight or fight' manner, however my opinion/belief means little. What does matter is his account of what happened, and if that can be shown to have reasonable doubt then all we are left knowing beyond a reasonable doubt is that he killed Martin.

It's a miscarriage of justice, that prosecutors can go to their media buddies, and start planting ideas in the public's head about a case, long before the case even hits a grand jury. If you get arrested for a "high profile crime", good luck to you. You will have to spend far more than you will make in a lifetime to some slimy ass lawyer firm if you hope to stay out of prison. If you cannot collect some lawsuits afterwards, you are financially screwed for the rest of your life if you are not rolling in money.......

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Does George strike you as the kind of guy who ever runs more than he has to?

Ignorant argument considering he was going to the gym 3 times a week and had lost like a 100 lbs since starting. He only gained the way back after being forced into hiding for a year by idiots like the New Black Panthers.

edit on Tue Jul 9 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed tag

Kinda sad... I'm having trouble losing a few pounds just to make my belly flat since I'm very impatient and I want to have Ryan Gosling's body now, but Zimmerman managed to drop from 250 or 260 pounds down to about 200... that takes a ton of dedication. Then to gain it all back because you're forced into hiding after having to defend yourself from an attacker. Zimmerman is just one unlucky dude.