Your Opinion Of Zimerman Now?

[Langston Hughes]

This is still a classic~

 

 

 

Wow, a big butt blast about a black woman from Cal50! Yeah, he's not a racist, he just likes to attack the First lady for not being a supermodel size.

[Langston Hughes]

With the common mis-use of the word "hate" you must define it again, because I wasn't "hating"....I was admonishing you for your "doughboy" reference. For someone who seems sensitive to racial comment and the issue of racism, how can you be offended when your race is used to denigrate but weight is fair game?

 

Genetics and culture have been associated with a persons weight.

 

Isn't it more important what a person DOES as opposed to how they look?

 

Are you advocating smart-ass remarks regarding non-public figures (celebs and politicians are generally fair game)?

 

And considering the past several months of threats to his life and public scrutiny and police investigations, perhaps the stress has led to over-eating? That seems like is could exacerbate latent weight control problems.

 

Fired, out of shape people with no extensive previous fight training of any sort usually get their ass kicked by younger, stronger and in better overall condition. So if your a doughboy with an attitude problem, a history of violent conflict and cop fantasies you might need to carry a gun.

[NickF1011]

This thread is on thin ice.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Sworn testimony is to be considered as fact/s and they are not favorable thus far for the prosecution. The charge is 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter so comments are framed in the states uphill requirement to prove.

As to a manslaughter charge that on face value seems a better "fit" until you have the physical injuries on Zman that proves he was assaulted , one of the prosecutions witnesses placing Martin on top of Zman at the time of the assault and the wet clothing on Zman back that places him on the ground under Martin. I think any reasonable person in the same spot would be concerned for there life or well being. The same witness said he believed it was the person on the bottom yelling for help which he named as Zman. States witness testimony as "fact" and really bad for the Martin camp.

 

If Martin was in fact shot and killed during an assault he got what he deserved as is anyone else that chooses to knock down, mount and throw punched on ANYONE.

 

Maybe this is why some people do not like the idea of concealed carry but if it was a cop in Zman place this would have never been in court.

Its been played as a racial angle from the media and some others form the start and emerging facts (testimony) will never change some peoples opinion.

 

 

Use of deadly force is permissible in Fla. under the following conditions :

 

 

The statute on justifiable use of force per Florida Statute:

 

776.012  Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013

No Cal 50, sworn testimony does not constitute fact. If it did, every case where two people offered contradictory testimony would be impossible to Judge. That is the reason the Jury is the finder of the facts. Someone can testify truthfully as to their recollection of events or identification of people and be dead wrong. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms in trial, particularly where the person identified is a stranger to the witness and of a different race.

 

The unfavorable testimony of a witness called by the prosecution is a huge problem for the State, but the Jury is free to determine the credibility of all witnesses and may disregard any or all of the testimony they find not to be credible.

 

Self Defense is an affirmative defense and the defendant must prove that the defense applies. There are also issues as to how the altercation started which the jury must determine. One cannot attack another and then claim self defense when he starts losing the fight.

 

Again, If Zimmerman had been a cop, he would have been expected to follow proper procedure in identifying himself as an officer and the situation would not have happened as it did. Zimmerman took the law into his own hands and as the result, Martin is dead.

[akirby]

I don't understand how Z-man could have caught Martin in the first place unless Martin stopped and confronted him. He had a headstart, was clearly faster and Z-man was already out of breath. Z-man had already called the police so he would have had no motive to attack Martin - just hold him until Police arrived. Had Martin been shot from a distance or Z-man had no injuries then I would feel differently but at this point - to me - I don't see any rational explanation other than Martin attacked him and was on top of him beating his head into the ground.

[cal50]

No Cal 50, sworn testimony does not constitute fact. If it did, every case where two people offered contradictory testimony would be impossible to Judge. That is the reason the Jury is the finder of the facts. Someone can testify truthfully as to their recollection of events or identification of people and be dead wrong. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms in trial, particularly where the person identified is a stranger to the witness and of a different race.

 

The unfavorable testimony of a witness called by the prosecution is a huge problem for the State, but the Jury is free to determine the credibility of all witnesses and may disregard any or all of the testimony they find not to be credible.

 

Self Defense is an affirmative defense and the defendant must prove that the defense applies. There are also issues as to how the altercation started which the jury must determine. One cannot attack another and then claim self defense when he starts losing the fight.

 

Again, If Zimmerman had been a cop, he would have been expected to follow proper procedure in identifying himself as an officer and the situation would not have happened as it did. Zimmerman took the law into his own hands and as the result, Martin is dead.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me rephrase it a bit~

 

The witnesses were all deposed and testified based on their depositions.

 

Deposition : The taking of an oral statement of a witness under oath, before trial. It has two purposes: To find out what the witness knows, and to preserve that witness' testimony.

The intent is to allow the parties to learn all of the facts before the trial, so that no one is surprised at trial.

 

My bad for using the witness / depositions / testimony as "fact" even though its stated by definition to lean the facts of what happened.

 

I am really curious why you assume Zman "attacked" Martin?

Is there any proof or physical evidence to support that ?

 

Both Zman and Martin had the same legal right to be on the same sidewalk at the same time. I would assume nasty words were exchanged but in the end it appears Martin was on top of Zman for whatever reason.

This is where the person on the bottom becomes the victim and the person on top committing the assault is the assailant.

 

"Taking the law into his own hands" ?.

A guy that calls 911 and has a dispatcher on the phone is hardly taking the law into his own hands.

[grbeck]

The sworn testimony from the witness who claims to have seen the altercation is the "truth" from the standpoint that the witness was testifying truthfully under oath. If he were lying, then he could be charged with perjury. If he had, in fact, committed perjury, the prosecution would have seized on this fact to discredit him completely.

 

The prosecution will attempt to discredit his testimony by showing that his testimony is not necessarily ACCURATE because of other factors - the distance from which he viewed the fight, the lighting (or lack of it), the fact that he may have seen only a portion of the fight, etc.

 

There is no indication that he is deliberately lying, so the prosecution will try to show that what he claims he saw is not what really happened during the fight.

 

The key question of the case is this - who started the fight? Did Zimmerman start it by following Matin and pulling a gun on him when had him cornerned, or did Martin follow Zimmerman after the latter had stopped tracking him, and jump him by his truck? If it's the latter case, then Zimmerman walks. At this point, there appears to be enough evidence to support Zimmerman's version of the events - certainly enough to plant the seeds of reasonable doubt.

 

If the case does, in fact, involve the second scenario, then Zimmerman is certainly under no obligation to announce his presence and intention to Martin before the fight.

 

As for the comments regarding Zimmerman's weight and the First Lady's figure - I guess everyone posting on this site looks like someone from the cast or Baywatch or The Fast and the Furious series. LOL!

Edited July 1, 2013 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Here is a thorough overview of the trial's testimony so far:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmerman-the-backwards-trial-resumes/3/

[Mark B. Morrow]

Let me rephrase it a bit~

 

The witnesses were all deposed and testified based on their depositions.

 

Deposition : The taking of an oral statement of a witness under oath, before trial. It has two purposes: To find out what the witness knows, and to preserve that witness' testimony.

The intent is to allow the parties to learn all of the facts before the trial, so that no one is surprised at trial.

 

My bad for using the witness / depositions / testimony as "fact" even though its stated by definition to lean the facts of what happened.

 

I am really curious why you assume Zman "attacked" Martin?

Is there any proof or physical evidence to support that ?

 

Both Zman and Martin had the same legal right to be on the same sidewalk at the same time. I would assume nasty words were exchanged but in the end it appears Martin was on top of Zman for whatever reason.

This is where the person on the bottom becomes the victim and the person on top committing the assault is the assailant.

 

"Taking the law into his own hands" ?.

A guy that calls 911 and has a dispatcher on the phone is hardly taking the law into his own hands.

Actually, Depositions are seldom used in criminal cases. The witness may have given statements to the police, prosecutors or the defense attorneys. It is also quite possible that the witness gave different statements to each one.

 

I can't imagine a prosecutor putting on a damaging witness if he had notice that he was going to testify favorably to the defense. It is more likely that the testimony was a surprise or that the witness was not properly interviewed. If it is the latter then the prosecutor is incompetent.

 

Prosecutors are obligated to provide all statements obtained to the defense, but they are not requried to put a defense witness on the stand. There are also rules about impeaching your own witness. Generally it cannot be done, unless the witness has given a prior statement which contradicts his trial testimony. This is to prevent having a Defense witness telling a different story to the prosecutor in order to be called in the State's case on direct.

 

To be accepted as fact, testimonial or documentary evidence must be stipulated by counsel. Otherwise it is just evidence the truth of which is to be found by the Jury.

 

We do not know who attacked who. It is just as likely that Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation as it is that Zimmerman did so.

 

A Jury could reasonably believe that Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and left Martin alone when told to do so by the 9-1-1 dispatcher. That would certainly fall within the manslaughter instructions. Murder charges can include lesser included offenses like manslaughter and the Judge may instruct the jury to consider those charges if they find the facts will support them. Since intent is not necessary to sustain a manslaughter conviction, that may be where this ends up.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Here is a thorough overview of the trial's testimony so far:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmerman-the-backwards-trial-resumes/3/

Thorough but not unbiased. "John Good’s home was next door to Lauer’s. The attack also took place very nearly in his backyard. He was articulate, intelligent, obviously unbiased and credible."

 

It strikes me as improbable that the prosecutor called John Good to establish that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him.

[grbeck]

Thorough but not unbiased. "John Good’s home was next door to Lauer’s. The attack also took place very nearly in his backyard. He was articulate, intelligent, obviously unbiased and credible."

 

It strikes me as improbable that the prosecutor called John Good to establish that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him.

 

The prosecution doesn't seem to be doing a very good job in this case, so it wouldn't surprise me that it called Mr. Good without realizing how his testimony might damage its case.

 

This site is a counterweight to the standard media coverage, which displays its own bias by leaving out certain key bits of testimony. I consider it very important, for example, if a witness admits on the stand that she took various actions in support of Martin's family:

 

Selene Bahadoor, a resident, was visibly reluctant to say anything favorable about Zimmerman. She came up with testimony of “left to right” running sounds — a version of the narrative has Zimmerman pursuing Martin. Bahadoor had not offered this testimony in two previous police interviews and a deposition, which was exposed by the defense.

 

She claimed to have feelings of sympathy for the Zimmermans and for Martin’s family, implying that she was not at all biased — but O’Mara got her to admit that she “liked” Martin’s Facebook page. He asked why she didn’t like Zimmerman’s, and she replied that she never had the opportunity. (emphasis added)

 

He also confronted her with the fact that she signed a Change.org petition to “prosecute the killer of our son, Trayvon Martin.” She also admitted that, unlike her testimony that she did not want to be involved at all, she did a half-hour video with Matt Gutman of ABC News which may or may not have been aired. (emphasis added)

 

I haven't seen a lot of the facts cited by this story covered by the media.

 

The real question is whether Zimmeran will take the stand. Putting him on the stand carries a lot of risk, but I would imagine that the jury wants to hear his version of the events of that night straight from his mouth.

Edited July 1, 2013 by grbeck

[cal50]

Thorough but not unbiased. "John Good’s home was next door to Lauer’s. The attack also took place very nearly in his backyard. He was articulate, intelligent, obviously unbiased and credible."

 

It strikes me as improbable that the prosecutor called John Good to establish that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him.

 

 

The prosecution had little choice and had to call him ( Good) as a witness.

If not the defense would have claimed the prosecution withheld eyewitness testimony to facts that do not support their case and actually support the defense.

 

They chose to take the hit up front and hope its forgotten than at closing arguments is my guess.

[hermans]

The defense will hammer it home during closing argument.

[NickF1011]

The defense will hammer it home during closing argument.

Perhaps with another knock knock joke?

[Langston Hughes]

I don't understand how Z-man could have caught Martin in the first place unless Martin stopped and confronted him. He had a headstart, was clearly faster and Z-man was already out of breath. Z-man had already called the police so he would have had no motive to attack Martin - just hold him until Police arrived. Had Martin been shot from a distance or Z-man had no injuries then I would feel differently but at this point - to me - I don't see any rational explanation other than Martin attacked him and was on top of him beating his head into the ground.

 

I believe she testified this...

 

Martin told her he wanted to try and "lose" the man and starting walking back home, leaving the area near the mailboxes, she said.

 

Everything points to Martin hiding or trying to evade Zimmerman and that he was not able to. Her testimony and Zimmerman's own statements show he didn't identify himself as part of the watch when they finally ran into each other. We all know that 18 year old kids when followed by someone don't always turn and run away as it kinda goes against that whole macho masculine "I'm a man" thing they are going through. Whether right or wrong that is for a jury to decide, but to run is often considered weak and for those that have done something wrong. Why you and others expect the younger and less mature kid to make all the correct decisions while letting Zimmerman off the hook for his own mistakes is certainly beyond me.

 

It's a sad day when the young unarmed person is ultimately considered at fault over the supposedly much more mature and armed person. But when you have posters taking shots at common traits of black ancestry it is telling.

[Langston Hughes]

Here is a thorough overview of the trial's testimony so far:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmerman-the-backwards-trial-resumes/3/

 

A clearly biased politically overview. Come on, pjmedia is so far right it's why you like it.

[cal50]

Perhaps with another knock knock joke?

 

 

That was one of the most stupid opening statements in a murder case.....

[NickF1011]

 

That was one of the most stupid opening statements in a murder case.....

Heck, it would have been a bad opening statement in a jaywalking case.

[grbeck]

I believe she testified this...

 

 

Everything points to Martin hiding or trying to evade Zimmerman and that he was not able to. Her testimony and Zimmerman's own statements show he didn't identify himself as part of the watch when they finally ran into each other. We all know that 18 year old kids when followed by someone don't always turn and run away as it kinda goes against that whole macho masculine "I'm a man" thing they are going through. Whether right or wrong that is for a jury to decide, but to run is often considered weak and for those that have done something wrong. Why you and others expect the younger and less mature kid to make all the correct decisions while letting Zimmerman off the hook for his own mistakes is certainly beyond me.

 

It's a sad day when the young unarmed person is ultimately considered at fault over the supposedly much more mature and armed person. But when you have posters taking shots at common traits of black ancestry it is telling.

 

Everything does not point to that scenario. There is plenty of evidence that contradicts it. At this point, the overwhelming majority of the evidence contradicts it.

 

Any reason as to why Martin turned back to confront Zimmerman is irrelevant, except for one - namely, that Zimmerman had cornered Martin, and he had no choice but to confront him.

 

If, for any other reason, Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman, then Zimmerman most likely walks. Martin doesn't get a pass just because he confronted Zimmerman to prove that he (Martin) was "a man" or didn't want to be considered "weak."

 

Martin's age and lack of maturity are irrelevant. What matters is whether he confronted Zimmerman (and, thus, initated the altercation). Martin may have been young and unarmed, but he was also over six feet tall, and pounding Zimmerman's head on to the sidewalk. He could have caused serious brain injury or death by doing that. It's not a "mistake" to use deadly force against someone who can seriously injure or even kill you, even if said person is 17-years-old (there are plenty of strong teenage males out there). That is allowed under the law.

Edited July 1, 2013 by grbeck

[grbeck]

A clearly biased politically overview. Come on, pjmedia is so far right it's why you like it.

 

Bias can be shown in two ways - through the omission of key facts, or outright lying. Did that happen with this article?

 

The author certainly wasn't spinning stories based on what he thinks he knows, or making stuff up. He referenced actual trial testimony, and the trial transcripts can be checked for accuracy.

[Langston Hughes]

Bias can be shown in two ways - through the omission of key facts, or outright lying. Did that happen with this article?

 

The author certainly wasn't spinning stories based on what he thinks he knows, or making stuff up. He referenced actual trial testimony, and the trial transcripts can be checked for accuracy.

 

The author was clearly spinning. Hell, he was holding a spinning class for him and his conservative friends.

[NickF1011]

Bias can be shown in two ways - through the omission of key facts, or outright lying. Did that happen with this article?

It can also be shown through emphasis or de-emphasis of one item compared to another. It's not omitting anything or lying, but still portrays bias.

[Langston Hughes]

Not only does this trial have heavy political bias associated with it, but it has racial proxy battles too. Amazing really.

[grbeck]

The author was clearly spinning. Hell, he was holding a spinning class for him and his conservative friends.

You don't have to "spin" the facts to show that they are virtually all favorable to Zimmerman and his version of events. There may, however, be a bombshell lurking out there...if so, the prosecution had better produce it quickly.

[grbeck]

Not only does this trial have heavy political bias associated with it, but it has racial proxy battles too. Amazing really.

 

And which side was the one that turned this case into a racial matter? It wasn't conservatives or libertarians or even the pro-gun crowd.

Edited July 1, 2013 by grbeck