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: 98
25
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Judge Nelson just gave a tiny smirk there as if she thought, "Oh dear, George. You dun goofed!"




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It doesn't matter if they are life threatening or not. What matters if the person getting hit reasonably believes that it was life threatening. That's the law anyways.


The key to what you just said is "reasonably". This is a legalese term. This term will be explained to the jury prior to deliberations and just what it means in terms of fear for your life. The word "reasonably" in legal terms is not the same as you or I understand it to be. It is a very specific term and the criteria for the term will be laid out for the jury.

Long story short, yes it will matter if they are life threatening or not.


And how do we prove that Zimmerman didn't really believe his life was in danger?


Typically the standard in criminal cases would be something more like, "would a reasonable person believe...". Like I said, the criteria would be laid out and explained to a jury.


WHen you are the one getting beaten up ... things look different than they do for us here a year later talking about it ... ya' know??


Absolutely, but in the end it does not matter how I see things if I am beaten up. What matters is how a jury would see things.


This could have been a really good witness for the prosecution.
She started out gangbusters! But I think the defense has neutralized much (not all) of her testimony.


Maybe, maybe not. That is the thing with jury trials... you can not unring a bell. Once a jury gets something in their minds, it is in there.

Keep in mind, I still do not believe that Murder 2 is being proven, I think they are really laying out a clear case for manslaughter though. I would love to know if the jury is being permitted to convict on a lesser charge or not. Did anyone watch all the pretrial hearings? I'm sure it would have been addressed during that process.





posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Regardless of how hard my head is being slammed into the ground if my head and skull is taking damage it is life threatening. So what is this lady saying that GZ should have let TM hurt him more before defending his HEAD. It's this guys head being hit on the concrete not his knees or arms or legs his damn head you know where your brain is kept safe.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm wondering why the defense didn't bring up all the problems that people have had with this ME? All the complaints by co-workers and police and funeral homes and the rest. She's been accused of doing a lot of unprofessional stuff over the past 10 years. I figured they'd bring it up at the start when she was rattling off her credentials.


I quickly glanced at your link. At first glance, I did not see anything directed toward her actual findings or how competent she is at doing her job. If she had done something that screwed up a case, gave false findings, etc etc the defense would have and should have been all over her for that.

Bringing up silly issues is risky, it could appear like nit picking which a jury would/could view unfavorably.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
O Mara says George didn't even go to the SYG class. That's because he'd been doing his homework and felt he didn't need to.

ps. He still managed to get an A tho', despite that, so he's not quite as dim a bulb as he appears.
edit on 2-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I can't prove it, but everything about this ME screams plant, bought, biased... She seems overtly intent on proving Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening...

Anywho...

I remember back when the pictures of Zimmerman's bloody head first surfaced, and everyone was startled that he didn't look to have sustained that much damage. Everybody said that because his injuries were not a huge gaping hole and a broken neck, that he then had no right to discharge his firearm.

I asked even then, how was Zimmerman supposed to gauge the level of damage he sustained before he judged it to be enough to warrant defending himself? Its just a completely ridiculous notion that he wasn't injured ENOUGH to fight back. If anybody in anyway is going after the back of my head, I'm going to try to incapacitate them in any way possible, and if that means using deadly force then so be it. But injuries to the back of the head are no joke. What you want to do is stop the individual perpetrating the assault BEFORE he can cause significant damage. There's a reason boxers are not allowed to hit there.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I get what you are saying however the state just introduced the interview with Hannity where Zimmerman stated that he though Martin was going for his gun so in fact that has been introduced.


Yes but as I said.... only Zimmerman is saying it. So it comes down to weather or not you want to take his word for it. Unless the defense has a witness to the act of Trayvon reaching for Zimmerman's gun or any type of way to validate his claim.


The state has kind of screwed up by introducing so many statements by Zimmerman because now he probably does not need to take the stand. His statements are a matter of record now.


Yes and No. I thought about this yesterday. Zimmerman will not need to take the stand now, however there are some contradictions in all these statements and interviews. So it is risky if he does not explain those, and it is risky if he does. Example: The words of Zimmerman given to his "best friend" regarding the moment immediately before he pulled the trigger do not match Zimmerman's reenactment.


There is a bit of uproar about it here on the radio.


I am sure there is. That is because the masses do not understand the subtleties of what is happening.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Zimmerman is lucky to be alive. Why he is being charged with 2nd degree murder which seems to only be a waste of many Florida tax payers money?

Looks as if we no longer have the right to protect ourselves and criminals once again get the upper hand.
edit on 2-7-2013 by GoldenVoyager because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I am pretty sure the defense will be using the statements that were made immediately after the shooting and make the case to the jury that after time your memory changes I am sure we can all relate to that.

I do know the part about him going for his gun was also said in his initial interviews.

However if they do not need to put George on the stand it will be good for the defense.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


That's how I had to learn it in nursing school, so I'm pretty sure that's nationwide. Assault is a verbal threat. Battery is any unwanted touching or physical contact



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Am I reading your assault law right? A person has the first amendment right to call my mother a whore, criticise my father's manhood,claim I have sex with animals, all to my face and all in front of an audience, and if I respond "Go away or you are getting knocked out!" I'm the one who will be facing a charge sheet? Don't you have "fighting words" laws in some states?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Basically yes however most cops wouldn’t take you to jail they would just tell you both to calm down.

I was in a situation like that once.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
so george zimmerman caught in inconsistencies again!!! he told his best friend that trayvon reached for his gun and that he had a hold of his gun, and that somehow he managed to wrestle the gun away from trayvon and shoot him! show me where he told the cops that and where investigators found trayvons fingerprints on the gun? why would you lie about that? i know to try and make it seem like he killed trayvon in self defense, if he truly killed trayvon in self defense why the need to make up lies??????



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 

First amendment does not protect threats. Just saying 'knock you out' probably would alone get a charge but then who knows what a responding officer would think. But saying it and rushing the person just might.

Say something about his momma.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


Why do you think there would be fingerprints on the gun after they had been in the rain and the CSI testified as to how easily they could be wiped off by simply touching it in the chain of custody?

Edit

The witness now is a fingerprint expert I bet that it will be brought up on the cross and answer everything.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Am I reading your assault law right? A person has the first amendment right to call my mother a whore, criticise my father's manhood,claim I have sex with animals, all to my face and all in front of an audience, and if I respond "Go away or you are getting knocked out!" I'm the one who will be facing a charge sheet? Don't you have "fighting words" laws in some states?

Yes. That is correct. You can say anything( not in a health care setting of course) as long as its not a threat. And you better not have the means to back up your threat, then that's serious
For example, if you are a gun owner never threaten to shoot someone. You could end up locked up for evaluation.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am pretty sure the defense will be using the statements that were made immediately after the shooting and make the case to the jury that after time your memory changes I am sure we can all relate to that.


Agreed. However you can't forget the process.

Let me give another example. Let's take the ME's testimony. As FlyerFan pointed out, the ME was forced to admit that Zimmerman COULD have had his head hit the concrete multiple times. However, she said that his injuries were insignificant. So even if his head did hit the concrete 3 times, the injury itself was nothing.

This testimony is also backed up by the lead detective who said Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening and no big deal.

Now pretend your a juror. You're locked in that little room discussing this thing and you go back and read this testimony. Now take the words of these witnesses and compare them to Zimmerman's claim of that moment. He said Trayvon was slamming his head into the ground . He felt like his head was going to explode. He felt like he was losing consciousness.

Now you're gonna look at those words, then look at the evidence and now you are going to see a problem here.


I do know the part about him going for his gun was also said in his initial interviews.


Yes, but again it is only Zimmerman who is saying this. Trayvon's fingerprints are not on the weapon. His DNA is not on the weapon. There is no physical evidence to back up this claim. At least from what we know now since the DNA expert has not been on the stand to testify yet. However to my knowledge, this is what that expert will say. To our knowledge, there is no witness to back up this claim.


However if they do not need to put George on the stand it will be good for the defense.


Like I said, yes and no. Juries are funny in this way. With all the subtle inconsistencies in all these different interviews, it may be a good idea to put him on the stand. On the other hand, it may be a good idea to leave him off the stand and not try to explain these inconsistencies.

Here comes the fingerprint expert.... we may find out more about the gun now.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The CSI stated she swabbed the trigger, the back of the grip and the rear of the slide. Not the barrel end or the side of the slide. Those seem like likely places to be touched. Not to mention that there is no guarantee that touching it would leave DNA. Seem like sloppy work. Why not check all the surface.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


OK I pretty much agree with what you said. One thing to keep in mind is these are all witnesses for the prosecution I will bet before this trial is over that the defense will have an expert who disagrees with her.

Considering how many of the prosecution’s witnesses have almost seemed to be for the defense I don’t think the state is doing a very good job of proving their case.



edit

well that witness was un eventful..
edit on 2-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


Why do you think there would be fingerprints on the gun after they had been in the rain and the CSI testified as to how easily they could be wiped off by simply touching it in the chain of custody?

Edit

The witness now is a fingerprint expert I bet that it will be brought up on the cross and answer everything.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


thats all fine and dandy but why did zimmermans story change? zimmerman didnt say nothing about trayvon having his hands on his gun to the cops. INCONSISTENT!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join