The Zimmerman Trial

The Dummy Move by the Prosecution may have very well sealed their fate

When the prosecution straddled the dummy, in order to provide an 'alternative' scenario (out of desperation), it literally painted the picture for the Jury of Trayvon Martin BEING ON TOP OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.

At this point, the jury has provided way too many 'alternative-"what-if"- scenarios, ultimately grasping at straws.

This disproves their case on all grounds, plants too many seeds of EXTRA reasonable doubt, and the jury

MUST ACQUIT.

reply to post by FlyersFan


He was an expert witness that offerred his services for free. That's why he went on forever. Publicity.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


He's talking about carrying, not home defense.

Good point raised by a Zimmerman supporter/ defense attorney on HLN:

The Prosecution has painted so many 'what-if"s that they were not able to paint a clear picture of WHAT HAPPENED. They only assert that what George Zimmerman says did not happen, but never provides a summary of what DID happen.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Guess it depends on what you value. Personally I would rather go home with my head busted in a couple of places, and a broken nose, than have to live out the rest of my life knowing I had killed a teenager - (or anybody for that matter).

How was Zimmerman supposed to know he would be going home that night? Did Trayvon Martin tell him?

"Excuse me, sir, but I'm going to hit your head against the pavement several times now. I won't inflict any permanent brain damage, disfigurement, or loss of eyesight, and I certainly won't allow you to die during this beating, or any time after as a result of this beating. I say this as a respected neurosurgeon and bonified expert in head injuries."

"Oh, well, I was worried I'd have to defend myself using force, but if you promise the beating won't be too severe, I suppose I shall just have to take it. Certes, you have given your word of honor that my injuries, although doubtless painful and terrorizing, will ultimately prove to be minor. Even though head injuries frequently cause lifelong damage and even death, I respect your judgment in this manner, and I am satisfied you will cease the beating long before any such damage occurs. You may commence!"

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


I wish I could star that more.

Well at least I can see you have common sense even with the sarcasm.

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

Originally posted by firemonkey
I don't know what you mean, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove self-defense...they only have to prove the killing...that isn't in doubt. It is up to the defense to prove that it was in self-defense...I don't think they did that.

I respectfully disagree. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason. The onus is always on the prosecution. Since there were no direct witnesses to a total combined series of events - especially lack of witnesses to (presumed) confrontation, most of the struggle and gun-firing itself; it will IMH(f)O work in the defenses favor to cast "reasonable doubt" over whether or not it was an act of "murder".

I agree. I also feel that the prosecution pretty much dropped the ball all over the place.

Therefore I predict Not Guilty, with a chance of Hung Jury.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Self defense is a defense to murder.

Edit:

Once again the defense doesn't prove, it is the prosecution that proves it is not.

edit on 7/10/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

Ummm...no.

You can't just say "Self defense...prove me wrong".

The defense has to convince the jury that it was self-defense...the prosecutors role in this is to poke holes in that defense. There are no rules here, it is all up to the jury...so the defense has the burden on their shoulders to prove it was self defense or Zimmerman is found guilty.

There are two charges against him, 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter...I don't think the prosecution made a good case for 2nd degree murder, but they did for voluntary manslaughter. I don't think the defense made a great case for self-defense. Hence...I think Zimmerman will be found not guilty on 2nd degree murder and guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

Actually...IT IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Understand the meaning?

The prosecution has to prove murder 2, which they obviously failed to do. Given that, manslaughter is one of the remaining options. Did they adequately prove that? I have my doubts.
It would have to be guilty of manslaughter beyond any reasonable doubt. Did the prosecution, in their bungling way, prove manslaughter beyond doubt? I doubt it....a hung jury is more likely than guilty of manslaughter unless the jury is swayed by the need to keep the idiots from rioting.

The self-defense aspect is such that if what the defense presents is sufficient to create any reasonable doubt then the result would be a not guilty verdict at best, hung jury at worst.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Nearly correct, apart from the "ordering him to get on top bit." I'm guessing they went to the floor as a result of trying to engage in a tug of war of some kind on a wet, slippery surface.

Stop trolling. It's obvious your unsupported, entirely speculation sequence of events is just to start arguments. You know it's garbage but you post short comments for the sole purpose of getting angry replies.

If you really believe what you are saying, I truly feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i don't think the jury is buying that zimmerman thought he was afraid of dying from those injuries in the fight, i also don't think they believe it was george screaming, if you have a gun and are about to shoot someone why would you be screaming for your life? it is far more likely that trayvon saw the gun being pulled on him and was screaming for his life. of course pro zimmerman crowd will say that is pure speculation but i call it logic.

May I ask what it is that makes you think you know what the jury is thinking?

My opinion, based on what I have seen and read, is the exact opposite. Polls show a huge swing towards the not guilty verdict. I believe the worst that will likely come of this will be a hung jury. Part of the jury will be voting not guilty due to the "reasonable doubt" clause, and the rest will believe he is guilty of a lesser charge than murder 2.

reply to post by BellaSabre


No way. He is innocent all counts. The fact you went in thinking murder is telling.

If he got manslaughter in fla he'd be looking at 10 to 20 years. Too much.
The Martins wouldt dare sue Zimmerman in a civil suit but they don't care they already ripped off the HOA and masses of idiots at pass the hat rallies for over a milllion bucks.

Zimmerman however will sue the media, and possibly several politicians.

Nancy Grace and company keep screaming that Zimmerman was afraid to testify.

No.

The ONLY time a defendant needs to testify is when the Prosecution has painted a clear picture of their version of the story, and they are giving a rebuttal.

There was NO story painted by the prosecution, there was no story for the Defense to rebut.

reply to post by firemonkey


Not true at all. The state has to prove it WASN'T self defense.

That judge and Nancy Grace are two peas in a pod. Both are butts and don't give anyone the opportunity to defend Zimmerman's defense.


Peace

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Wiz4769

 

You guys crack me up, stand up and fight, you must be no older than a twenty something for sure. You grow out of that.

Guess it depends on what you value. Personally I would rather go home with my head busted in a couple of places, and a broken nose, than have to live out the rest of my life knowing I had killed a teenager - (or anybody for that matter).

I wouldn't have liked having my arse beat, but it would have been a better conclusion to this situation than the existing one.....

edit on 7/10/2013 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)

And you know you would have survived in such a way how? I want one of those crystal balls you have....

If one is in a physical altercation and no one else is around.....do you KNOW you are going to survive when you are getting the worst of it to that point?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by BellaSabre

 

No way. He is innocent all counts. The fact you went in thinking murder is telling.
If he got manslaughter in fla he'd be looking at 10 to 20 years. Too much.
The Martins wouldt dare sue Zimmerman in a civil suit but they don't care they already ripped off the HOA and masses of idiots at pass the hat rallies for over a milllion bucks.Zimmerman however will sue the media, and possibly several politicians.

GZ's lawsuits against corrupt political bigots begins here: Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla)

www.cnn.com...

updated 6:10 PM EDT 07.10.13
Ex-police chief blasts Zimmerman probe

ByEliottC. McLaughlin,CNN

(CNN) - The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of
ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.

Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial,
told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from
city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a
matter of justice.

"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got
dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."

(snip)

"With all the influence and the
protests and petitions for an arrest, you still have to uphold you oath."

(snip)

Instead, the mayor told him on March 16 the tapes had been released to
Martin's family and the public. The family was asked to help identify voices,
Lee said, but if police were in charge of the investigation, they wouldn't have
presented evidence to a group.

(snip)

"A lot of the information that was given out as fact was misinformation," he
said.

Interesting article after the revelations that made national headlines today. The "outside influence", proven now to have come atraight from the Whitehouse, no doubt has played a crucial part in this entire scenario.

In the end, we can only hope that regardless of the influence of the president, that liberty and justice prevails. Truth has a way of shining through.

We have no way of knowing if any influence was perpetrated upon the jurors, as there are covert jurors, and it is a risk taken with any trial. One can only hope that the processes used weeds them out, as one covert juror was discovered and removed during voidire, and he even attempted to come back into the courthouse. Had he been able to contact the jury pool, he would have destroyed weeks of work, forcing the process to start all over again.

In the end, the jury of 6 holds the life of someone in their hands, and we have to trust they make the right decision. Sadly, the corruption runs deep, and though exposed, we just don't know how influential it was, how far reaching it was, how deep the river runs.

One thing that can be said with certainty, the Federal government, the Attorney General, and above all, the president of the United States, had no business getting involved in this to the level that they did. Just the mere fact that they did, and that they interferred enough to affect lives of many concerned, should be enough to raise alarm bells.

Certainly, the next time a person is a potential witness to a crime, they will stop and think twice if they step forward and come to the aid of someone in need, how deeply might their life be affected? Will they, or their family, become the next sacrificial lamb?

Are you next? Will the Whitehouse come into your life?

reply to post by AmerigoVespucci


She is a politician, how can we expect her to be a reasonable and unbiased person.