It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 264
25
<< 261  262  263    265  266  267 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12


Emotions are a very powerful tool, which is why the lawyers are using them.

I used to be in sales and very good at it. The best salespeople, try to appeal to your emotions.
The 2 biggest are "greed" and "fear". All top salespeople know this.
So do the lawyers in this case, which is why they are doing it.

If this case was "cut and dry" about "facts", it would've never reached trial and been pleaded out or dropped.

Hence, here we are.


YT feeds I watched were from courtroom, not CNN.




This is a trial by jury, not a sales pitch.

No doubt appealing to emotions is a great sales pitch, especially when you have a product/service that won't sell itself. Successful salesmen/women are often not honest about what they are selling which is why they have to use one's emotions to get their sale and more often then not it is the sucker who they sale to, while a reasonable person is not swayed by their emotions and will not buy it.

I do think the prosecution played a big part in the all women jury because women are more likely to make a decision based on emotion.

In my humble opinion I think it is extremely shoddy of prosecution closing arguments to use emotions and no facts in an attempt to sway the jury.



**For the record I do no support Zimmerman's actions, however I was not there and will give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since no evidence has been presented that contradicts his story**




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
Yes, and having 3 lawyers in my family, they all agree.

I'm sorry to hear that. I myself come from the judicial tree.


Lawyers ARE salespeople, selling their argument to the jury. Pretty basic really.

Nope, they are not. Lawyers are supposed to be educated people who can look into the smallest of details in order to turn the situation in their favor using facts, logic, reason and their knowledge of the law.

The fact you are referring to lawyers as salespeople says alot about why you are supporting the side that you are. You're no better than a cheating salesman and expect lawyers to be the same.


You are correct, but yet, there they are, playing to the jurors emotions. Plus, those were CLOSING ARGUEMENTS, not testimony, so lawyers can say whatever they want, without objection from the other side.

You say "there they are playing to the jurors emotions" like this is the accepted norm. It is not. The fact that they are doing it is laughable, and more than possibly due to the fact that this is mass broadcasted or even as I implied, it could be them fearing for their jobs. Nor you and I can tell.

What I can indeed tell, is that turning to emotions in a court of law is actually no better than a cheating salesman that tries to BS an inexperienced shopper. Only in this case, the jury knows better. Or so I hope.


Show me one trial you've seen where lawyers have NOT playing to the jury's emotions? You can't.

Oh I can show you hundreds, even thousands of them if I only had a Go-Pro camera attached to me recording everything I see daily.

To be completely fair, using emotions is okay as long as it's on a reasonable level. Again, for the (I don't know what) time, using emotions in such an extreme extent of basically saying "Disregard common sense, use your heart" Is amature, pitiful and shameful. Obviously has no place coming out of the mouth of a lawyer who represents the state.
edit on 12-7-2013 by InstantRemedy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
Hello guys,

I realize that this is a very long thread and I'm sure the link is in here somewhere.. but.. does anyone have a link to the live feed that everyone has been watching?
edit on 12-7-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


WFTV



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


reply to post by OneisOne
 


Thanks



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


He did not stalk him. As was reported by the person at the other end of the phone, he was asked to tell if he did anything else.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7


On Topic -

George Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was a criminal...why? Because Trayvon Martin was a teenager, black and looked "thugish" this can be supported by the audio recording of GZ saying "these punks always get away." Why would he need to say those things if he didn't think Trayvon was a criminal? At this point he is advised by the dispatcher NOT TO FOLLOW him.

Now Trayvon has not committed a crime at this point, but GZ assumes he is a criminal so he follows him...most likely Travyon confronted him...as would I and I think a lot of people if they saw someone following them and stalking them with a gun.

A few minutes after that, Trayvon Martin lays on the ground dead because George Zimmerman ASSUMED he was a criminal.


Zimmerman assumed he was a criminal for very good reason. You most likely would have to if you lived in a high crime neighborhood. ANybody who fit the description of the people robbing, and who didn't live in the neighborhood would've seemed suspicious to anyone with any sense.

Trayvon laid dead because he got on top of George Zimmerman and assualted him relentlessly. You can say he wasn't committing a crime initially, but he definitely was when he got on top of George.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
www.wftv.com...

Live stream voting. Guilty Murder, Guilty Manslaughter, Not Guilty, Don't know.
77% say not guilty at this time.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hah. They added Manslaughter during the trial. This truly is a circus act.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Now 2 women discussing the case. In particular the pictures of Trayvon the Defense showed the jury. One states that this was not how Trayvon looked that night while the other states that the persecution tried to portray TM as a "kid"....

Actually seems balanced so far. Discussing the racial aspects now...accusing the Defense of stereotyping TM. hmm..not balance.

Now to jury instructions...





(yeah, I said persecution
)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
I have a question for those ATSer's who are questioning the use of "emotions" by lawyers in a CLOSING ARGUEMENT-

Is this the first time you have watched a trial?

Closing arguments are whatever the attorney's want to say, and "facts" or lack of them, doesn't matter.

It's Basic Lawyering 101, to attempt to appeal to the jurors emotions during closing arguments.


People in this thread don't seem to mind the defense appealing to emotion when they are trying to paint Trayvon as a scary black guy that deserved to be killed for walking while black.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Emotion vs Logic and Evidence...

Thats what its up to right now.

Emotionally, you guys want Zimmerman to pay and lock him in a cage forever.

Logically you guys want Zimmerman set free based off the facts of the case.

Thats the thing here. Emotionally charged case, MSM hyped it up to promote a clash/race war... the president used this case to win votes, the media used it to bloat their ratings and to make people fight/hate each other. Now a lot of people are emotionally charged about this case... with little to no knowledge of whats been proven in court so far. Its all just emotionally charged rhetoric and conjecture.

Yet the facts draw a clear distinct line... most of you are too angered to really care about that line and make up your imaginary ones. Emotion blinds some of you.

Emotion aside, the facts are still the facts. you cant sugar coat it any other way.

The defense has a timeline based off witness accounts and other evidence

and the prosecution just has a theory... that's all they have... a theory.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by InstantRemedy
Hah. They added Manslaughter during the trial. This truly is a circus act.


Incredible. Unethical in my view.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


Why do you keep making this about race?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
People in this thread don't seem to mind the defense appealing to emotion when they are trying to paint Trayvon as a scary black guy that deserved to be killed for walking while black.

Get your facts straight. Defense tried to portray the incident as it is, and the people involved as they are. Never have they tried describing him as a "scary black guy". But don't let that stop you from using the race card again. That is your habit, obviously.

Whatever the defence tried to portray, they did so using facts and evidence and not catch-phrases and buzzwords or appealing to the jurors hearts.
edit on 12-7-2013 by InstantRemedy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
By hearing these jury instructions...Zimmerman is screwed.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by freedom12
Yes, and having 3 lawyers in my family, they all agree.

I'm sorry to hear that. I myself come from the judicial tree.


Lawyers ARE salespeople, selling their argument to the jury. Pretty basic really.

Nope, they are not. Lawyers are supposed to be educated people who can look into the smallest of details in order to turn the situation in their favor using facts, logic, reason and their knowledge of the law.

The fact you are referring to lawyers as salespeople says alot about why you are supporting the side that you are. You're no better than a cheating salesman and expect lawyers to be the same.


You are correct, but yet, there they are, playing to the jurors emotions. Plus, those were CLOSING ARGUEMENTS, not testimony, so lawyers can say whatever they want, without objection from the other side.

You say "there they are playing to the jurors emotions" like this is the accepted norm. It is not. The fact that they are doing it is laughable, and more than possibly due to the fact that this is mass broadcasted or even as I implied, it could be them fearing for their jobs. Nor you and I can tell.

What I can indeed tell, is that turning to emotions in a court of law is actually no better than a cheating salesman that tries to BS an inexperienced shopper. Only in this case, the jury knows better. Or so I hope.


Show me one trial you've seen where lawyers have NOT playing to the jury's emotions? You can't.

Oh I can show you hundreds, even thousands of them if I only had a Go-Pro camera attached to me recording everything I see daily.

To be completely fair, using emotions is okay as long as it's on a reasonable level. Again, for the (I don't know what) time, using emotions in such an extreme extent of basically saying "Disregard common sense, use your heart" Is amature, pitiful and shameful. Obviously has no place coming out of the mouth of a lawyer who represents the state.
edit on 12-7-2013 by InstantRemedy because: (no reason given)



It's a closing argument, not testimony. You seem to be missing that point.




Oh I can show you hundreds, even thousands of them if I only had a Go-Pro camera attached to me recording everything I see daily.


Still missing it. This isn't "daily life", it's closing arguments. You can't show me one closing argument where attorneys don't appeal to emotions. It is the lawyers job to "sell" their case" to the jury.


Lawyers ARE salespeople during closing arguments. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change the fact that they do it.

This will be my last response to you sir.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


If you're a wanna be cop armed with a gun, and you start following someone you should be responsible for the outcome of the situation you started.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


I read the document. its just the definitions of each charge and how to apply it when deliberating and getting to a verdict.

The judge will also inform the jury that no matter what the jury thinks the judge thinks about the case... they get the final call. not the judge.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


where is the law that states that i cant follow someone?

ill wait...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 261  262  263    265  266  267 >>

log in

join