The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
That's why the state wants to bring in evidence that proves it isn't a "might have been familiar with police interview tactics" we are dealing with, but a certainty.

Just because he took a class that talked about police interviews doesn't mean that he skewed his interview. There is no 'certainty' or facts that he did ... just speculation being put into the minds of the jury that it could have happened.

Just like when the defense brought up the 'slim jim' burglary tool being found where Martin was supposed to be hiding. There was no facts to connect Martin to it, but the defense put it out there to put doubt in the minds of the jury. Saying it was there was a fact, just like saying Zimmerman took the class is a fact. But both incidents are devoid of any relevance because they don't prove anything.

Proof that Zimmerman lied .... that would be relevant.
Proof that he took a class in criminal justice .... that doesn't prove that he lied. it just plants speculation.

Like i said .. If I was on trial for something, it seems that the government can now use my education level against me in a court when I'm the defendant. Lesson ... stay stupid and don't get involved. Otherwise, it'll bite you in the backend.

reply to post by FlyersFan



The defense should argue to bring in the video TM took of his buddies beating up a homeless man. They can argue that that's how TM learned to pummel GZ, just as GZ's coursework showed him how to supposedly learn about "Stand Your Ground" law.

Prosecution witness that the prosecution fought to get in ..... he just said that Zimmerman wanted to be in the police but that he couldn't because of bad credit. The witness was asked if ZImmerman could reapply after his credit problems were cleared up. He witness said that Zimmerman could but that he didn't. I guess the prosecution witness just confirmed the defense position that Zimmerman wasn't a 'cop wannabe' ... since Zimmerman was free and clear to apply to be a cop and didn't bother.

Side note ... looks like Zimmerman didn't pay attention in class. He didn't bother to 'lawyer up' and made five statements to the police without any lawyer present. He may have gotten an 'A' in litigation class, but he certainly didn't put it to use! Lesson .... GET A LAWYER before you speak to the cops.

You know, it really doesn't matter what courses he took or didn't take.
It doesn't matter whether Treyvon was a thug, or smoked pot, or the ramblings of a kid on facebook.

The only thing that matters is what took place in those short minutes the night he died. That's all. All the history is irrelevant.

They knew nothing about one another. Nothing.

reply to post by UnBreakable

Originally posted by UnBreakable
The defense should argue to bring in the video TM took of his buddies beating up a homeless man.

No one has claimed that Trayvon didn't fight with George.

Zimmerman himself, claimed on national TV that he'd never heard of "Stand Your Ground".

This is not to prove that Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground. It's to prove that he LIED about it. Just one more in a LOOOOOOONG line of lies and inconsistencies.

I thought Trayvon's dad was wearing a dread wig there for a second...

The reason this is relevant is becauze George said in a statement that he was not familiar with the Stand Your Ground Law.

The Professor said he gave George an A in the course, and the first homework assignment was on self defense, and in particular how it was pertinent in Florida. He stated that he stressed the SYG law, and it was brought up throughout the class.

That seems pretty damning to me.

I do not recall where George said he was not familiar with the SYG law, but I do recall that being the reason the state wanted this brought in.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by UnBreakable

 

Originally posted by UnBreakable
The defense should argue to bring in the video TM took of his buddies beating up a homeless man.

No one has claimed that Trayvon didn't fight with George.

Zimmerman himself, claimed on national TV that he'd never heard of "Stand Your Ground".

This is not to prove that Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground. It's to prove that he LIED about it. Just one more in a LOOOOOOONG line of lies and inconsistencies.

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.

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.

Now the defence is trying to suggest that because George didn't go to the SYG class, he didn't know anything about it, despite him living in Florida and being interested in law and self-defence. Laughable.

Oh wait, no it's not... it's gone for the distraction of trying to remind Floridans what SYG allows you to get away with.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I thought Trayvon's dad was wearing a dread wig there for a second...

Phew... it wasn't just me then.

Captain Alexis Carter on stand. Was a prof for Zimmerman for one semester.

He says he taught from a practical standpoint ... common sense approach.
Says Zimmerman was a one of his best students.
Says they covered 'stand your ground'
(Zimmerman had said on TV that he didn't know 'stand your ground' )

Defense gets witness to state that 'stand your ground' is a recent nickname for a law.
That nickname wasn't in use when Zimmerman took the course.

Side note ... friendly guy ... obviously coached by the prosecution ... but he is very open ...

Originally posted by UnBreakableMy 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.

They can, but then the state will bring up George's personal history too, and I doubt he wants to go down that road.

reply to post by Libertygal


The professor just admitted that when Zimmerman took the class, the law wasn't 'stand your ground'.
ZImmerman told Hannity that he didn't know 'stand your ground'. So it's feasible.
He knew a law by a different name and wasn't familiar with the term 'stand your ground'.

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

That's what it all comes down to. And we don't know. Did Zimmerman attack Martin? Did Martin attack Zimmerman. We just don't know. We won't ever know. No amount of conjecture or guessing will ever
tell us. Both Zimmerman and Martin have 'attitudes' ... but attitudes aren't facts.

Witness .... 'reasonable fear' .... is subjective and objective. Looks like the witness is now being turned for the defense. Obviously he was coached by the prosecution. But the defense is neutralizing him very well. IMHO

Side note - Zimmerman isn't using 'stand your ground' as a defense.

BOOM! Defense just killed this testimony for the prosecution. 'you don't have to wait until your life is in danger to believe that it is ... and things change fast .... and if you get grabbed in the dark and are in fear .....'

This guy is now a defense witness .....

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. He taught mostly on the Castle Doctrine.

While asking about the old law on the requirement to retreat if outside, of course the state objects.

The claim is, SYG was not the term used. It was a nickname for the law, which we all know.

Thus, again, fluff.

This guy definitely talks too much! I agree with FF, the defense is neutralizing him quite nicely. This is the first time I've thought West was doing a great job! He keeps asking about the law instead of what the witness TAUGHT.

And it's gone from talking about Stand Your Ground to regular Self Defense. The prosecution is kicking themselves right now.

It's all about disproportionate response. George used it. Trayvon felt in imminent danger even though he had no injuries yet, and when George approached him in a dark alley, he didn't have a gun to end this threat, all he had was his fists.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The prosecution is kicking themselves right now.

I wonder if any of them will have jobs when this is over. The Prosecution fought to get this witness in. Fought hard. And it bit them in the butt. Side note .. the witness seems like a really nice guy and is very open.

The prosecution is now trying to rehabilitate him as their witness ... remind him of his coaching.
But the damage to the prosecution is done.